Talk:Christianity/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Normative and non-Normative Terminology

Perhaps the example of another group may help clarify what should be a ridiculously non-controversial problem here. There is "Judaism" and "Messianic Judaism." Messianic Jews are generally Trinitarian. They believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God, resurrected from the dead, and destined to come again in the clouds to transform the world. All the Christians here can easily recognize these principles of faith to be either identical to or closely related to their own beliefs.

All the Christians here will also agree that these Messianic Jewish beliefs are those they also hold to be "true."

And all the Christians here will agree that these are what the Old Testament prophets pointed to.

Hence, "Messianic Judaism" is what "Judaism" is SUPPOSED to be. To a Christian, "Messianic Judaism" is "true Judaism."

When I say that "Messianic Judaism" is "not Judaism" I am NOT saying that "Messianic Judaism" is false. I am simply saying that the term "Messianic Judaism" is not used in the English language with the same meaning of the term "Judaism." My objection is not theological, but simply editorial. One cannot call "Messianic Judaism" a kind of "Judaism" without a caveat that everyone we normally think of by the term "Judaism" would adamantly exclude "Messianic Judaism."

Does that make "Messianic Judaism" false? No.

Does that deny that "Messianic Judaism" is what "Judaism" is SUPPOSED to be? No.

This isn't a POV argument. Even if "Judaism" were a false religion -- it is still a religion that has self defined boundaries. Those boundaries are often related to the 13 princples of faith and deliberately exclude Christian (i.e. Messianic) beliefs from the self definition of "Judaism." Even if one believed "Judaism" were false -- it's STILL "Judaism."

That's all I'm saying about Christianity here. It has self defined as explicitly Trinitarian for a long while here. Does that make Trinitarianism "true"? No. Does that mean there were no pre Nicene Christians? No. There were also pre Rabbinic Jews -- but Judaism has self defined since Talmudic times in a normative Rabbinic framework. There were pre Nicene Christians -- but Christianity has self defined since Nicea in a normative Trinitarian framework.

Neither "Judaism" nor "Christianity" is "true" of "false." They are simply (right or wrong or for better or worse) self defined in certain ways.

Thus, "Messianic Judaism" cannot be listed as a kind of "Judaism" contrary to the normative meaning of "Judaism" without some kind of caveat.

And, "Mormonism" cannot be listed as a kind of "Christianity" contrary to the normative meaning of "Christianity" without some kind of caveat.

Should scholarly citations be used? Certainly.

MUST those citations include the self definitions of those groups themselves -- such as the 13 principles or the Nicene Creed? ABSOLUTELY.

This is NPOV. It is fair. It includes scholarly citations. It retains normative meanings of terms. It allows minority heterodox groups to be listed (with a caveat). And it allows all groups to self define.

I would do this for Judaism, Christianity, or any other group.

No doubt Storm will disagree and claim I'm biased. But the fact that I treat all groups the same here demonstrates that I have no bias involved. I simply do not want readers given a false impression of the normative meanings of these groups as they have historically defined themselves.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Any reference for a "normative" Christian? A neutral source that defines a normative Christian as required to believe in the Nicene Creed? All the editorializing is nice, but it is now time to provide the references. --^StormRider 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is all original research without well defined neutral sources. Bytebear (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly original research. The source is the Nicene Creed itself. Another would be Schaff's history of the creeds. Another would be a standard theology such as Berkhof or Erickson. The problem here has to do with neutrality. If I read Storm correctly, he would not regard ANY Christian denomination to be neutral, nor the findings of the Council of Nicea or the adoption of the Ecumenical Creeds by Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic councils.

I would be intrigued if Storm were to provide a clear "neutral" reference to show that a Trinitarian Mormon would NOT be considered a heretic by the LDS church. If the LDS church officially stated that Trinitarianism was a non-heretical Mormon belief, he may show us something to consider.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Being a heretic to the LDS Church does not mean you are not a Christian to a Hindu. So, if the Pope were to say Protestants were heretical (which has clearly happened) you have just excluded all but Catholics from Christiandom. Bytebear (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of the ecumenical creeds, the Nicene has the greatest acceptance (per Schaff). If the Pope were to announce that all Nicene Christians were heretics, then we would have an issue -- a major denomination rejecting the ecumenical creeds. We don't have that happening.

I'm not sure what advantage there is to being more ecumenical than the ecumenical creeds. Those were designed to form the boundary of what is and is not part of the same religion. Again, that doesn't make it wrong -- just different.

In any case, most Hindus would probably assume a "Christian" to be a "Trinitarian." I know that to be the case with Jews and Muslims. I do not have a problem listing all notable self described "Christian" groups. I merely suggest a modifier for those groups that do not fit the normal assumptions of an English speaking reader. This is done for Jews and Mormons, and should be done for Christians as well.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand.

1) We have no source documenting "the normal assumptions of an English speaking reader" - and it's unlikely that the average English speaking reader is knowledgeable enough about either theology or church history to recognize the name "Nicene Creed," much less use it as part of their internal definition of what the term "Christan" means (it's even more unlikely, in my opinion, that we'll find a good survey addressing the issue);

2) It is prima facia non-neutral for Wikipedia to adopt a particular creed to exclude churches that define themselves as "Christian" - this would be exactly like the article on Islam adopting, as the normative definition of Islam, a Sunni creed or statement of faith that would exclude the Shia or Sufi;

3) The argument reflects a profound oversimplification of church history by singling out the LDS and other non-Trinitarians as one camp arrayed against a united Trinitarian group of "Nicene" churches that all mutually recognize each other as fully "Christian" on the basis of the Nicene Creed - this is simply not the case. There are Baptists who do not recognize Catholics as truly Christian, Catholics who do not recognize anyone who has not been baptized as Christan, Evangelicals who do not recognize anyone who has not been "born again" as truly Christian . . .

4) Sky, you said that "I merely suggest a modifier for those groups that do not fit the normal assumptions of an English speaking reader. This is done for Jews and Mormons, and should be done for Christians as well." - How? Where, specifically, is this done in these articles, and how is it brought into the text? I've looked at Judaism, and I just don't see it. There is a section on "Alternative Judaism" that says "Other expressions of Jewish identity fall outside of this conservative-liberal continuum." I don't see any definition of "normative" Judaism, however. I don't see it in Jewish religious movements either. I don't see anything similar in Islam. There is a section on "Others" under denominations, but no "normative" definition of Islam. I can't find anything similar in Islamic schools and branches (there is a purely descriptive "related faiths" section). Do you really mean to say that Wikipedia has adopted normative definitions for both Judaism and Islam, and "tagged" groups that fall outside those normative definitions with a "modifier"? If so, and that's what you want us to do here, it would help if you could point to where both those normative definitions and the related tags appear.

5) Worst of all, it doesn't help improve the article!

• "I do not have a problem listing all notable self described "Christian" groups." - Everyone is agreed that we have to do this; nothing else makes sense.
• "I merely suggest a modifier for those groups that do not fit the normal assumptions of an English speaking reader." The only non-neutral "tag" I can see that we could put here would be something saying that, for instance, many Trinitarian groups do not consider non-Trinitarians to be fully Christian (assuming we can appropriately source that assertion). We can't, as editors, decide which side is right.

Bottom line, this discussion is taking us nowhere. The only viable operational rule that's been suggested for deciding which groups to include in the scope of the article is whether or not a group describes itself as "Christian." At this point, no one is suggesting anything else. The only remaining question is that of Sky's "tagging" of certain groups (either ones that do not formally adopt the Nicene Creed, which would include a number of Protestant groups, or ones that are non-Trinitarian - I'm not clear about which, since Sky seems to be conflating the two). The only way we can do that without taking sides is, again, to find a source documenting that some groups in one category do not consider groups in the other to be truly Christian. Assuming the sources are forthcoming, we can discuss that. I do have a concern, however, that singling out one particular "fault line" in Christianity, to the exclusion of all the rest, will turn out to be effectively non-neutral.

In any event, let's please stop discussing theology, and focus on specific changes intended to improve the article. EastTN (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The specific change intended to improve the article is to treat Christianity with the same respect that Mormonism and Judaism are given in their respective articles. If anyone who calls themselves "Christian" is allowed without question, then the same MUST be done in the articles regarding Mormonism and Judaism. As a Jew, I cannot allow a break in established Wikipedia principle to happen here since it will imperil the integrity of other articles that already follow the principle I am suggesting here. Do I conflate Trinitarianism and the Nicene Creed? I should hope so! In any case, Mormons are allowed to self identify. Jews are allowed to self identify. Christians must be allowed the same. The ecumenical creeds, as I have noted from Schaff, were designed with this purpose.

It's easy to make the case that "true" Mormons are polygamists and "true" Jews are Messianic. I'm sure the heretical Mormons and heretical Jews regard themselves as "true".

The ecumenical creeds are just that: ecumenical. They are designed to cut across all Christian churches and set the parameters on the faith level. They are also explicitly and deliberately Trinitarian. Are they "right"? It doesn't matter. They are normative simply by their numbers, just as Arian Christianity would have been normative had they had more numbers through history.

It is not helpful that you wish to apply a double standard on Wikipedia. It imperils minority groups like Mormonism and Judaism when you won't even allow Christianity to self identify. If Christianity has no integrity here, NO religion can.

Finally, it is not neutral to equate all groups regardless of the history and numbers of Nicene Christians through history. Not all neutrality is neutral. If one were to equate both sides of a wife beating, for instance, one would NOT be neutral when doing so. If we were to disallow self identification of normative meanings on this encyclopedia and apply neutrality across the board according to your principle, then Messianics ARE Judaism, and polygamists ARE Mormonism. Neither of these are true. And neither are non-Trinitarians Christianity. I've cited Schaff. I've cited the Nicene Creed. Most of all I've cited the Judaism and Mormonism articles on Wikipedia to establish the principle that has been followed on this site. If none of these impress you, nothing else will either.

I'm getting tired, as a Jew, trying to defend the integrity of someone else's religion. I've needed to because the principle Storm is practicing here would imperil both his religion and mine on this site. But I cannot do this alone.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The ecumenical creeds [...] are designed to cut across all Christian churches and set the parameters on the faith level. - sorry, but that certainly does not apply to the early creeds like the Nicene. They were indeed intended to prescribe the one right way (as carefully determined by suitable deliberation of a selected subset of church leaders). In fact, as a cynic, I'd say they were designed to minimize political unrest in the Roman Empire as the budding church snuggled up to the political power structure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sky, you keep saying that you want Wikipedia to treat Christianity in exactly the same way it treats Judaism and Islam. You then describe that way as including a "normative definition" and "tagging" groups that fall outside that definition. Fair enough - but if you want other editors to do that, please:

a) Point out the exact text in the Judaism and Islam articles that give the "normative definitions"; and

b) Point out exact text examples in the Judaism and Islam articles of the "tags" applied to groups that fall outside those examples.

As I mentioned last night, I have looked at both of the articles. The closest thing I can find to a "normative definition" in the Judaism article is in the "Religious doctrines and principles of faith" section. Specifically

"Over the centuries, a number of formulations of Jewish principles of faith have appeared, and though they differ with respect to certain details, they demonstrate a commonality of core ideology. Of these formulations, the one most widely considered authoritative is Maimonides' thirteen principles of faith, formulated in the XII century. These principles were controversial when first proposed, evoking criticism by Hasdai Crescas and Joseph Albo. Maimonides thirteen principles were ignored by much of the Jewish community for the next few centuries.[12] Over time two poetic restatements of these principles ("Ani Ma'amin" and "Yigdal") became canonized in the Jewish prayer book, and eventually became widely held."

"According to Maimonides, any Jew to reject even one of his 13 principles would have to be considered an apostate and a heretic.[13][14] Although many Jewish scholars have held points of view diverging in relatively minor ways from Maimonides' 13 principles,[15] and Judaism has never known any one normative and binding creed of faith,[15][16][17] these 13 principles as formulated by the Rambam are the closest anyone has ever come to creating a widely-accepted list of Jewish beliefs.[18][19]"

"Joseph Albo and the Raavad have criticized Maimonides' list as containing too many items that, while true, were not fundamentals of the faith, and thus placed too many Jews in the category of "heretic", rather than those who were simply in error. Many others criticized any such formulation as minimizing acceptance of the entire Torah (see above). As noted however, neither Maimonides nor his contemporaries viewed these principles as encompassing all of Jewish belief, but rather as the core theological underpinnings of the acceptance of Judaism. Along these lines, the ancient historian Josephus emphasized practices and observances rather than religious beliefs, associating apostasy with a failure to observe Jewish law and maintaining that the requirements for conversion to Judaism included circumcision and adherence to traditional customs."

Note that Wikipedia never adopts any of this as a normative definition - it merely reports what Maimonides had to say. It also explicitly notes that "Judaism has never known any one normative and binding creed of faith," discusses the degree of variation within Judaism, and includes criticisms of Maimonides. This is all very, very good stuff - but I don't see how we can characterize it as adopting a normative definition for the purposes of the article.

I see absolutely no tagging of any group as outside the "normative definition" - even though the article mentions such diverse groups as Reconstructionist Judaism, the Jewish Renewal Movement and Humanistic Judaism (the last of which, at the very least, would have been somewhat surprising to Maimonides).

The closest thing I see to a "normative definition" in the Islam article is:

"The Qur'an states that all Muslims must believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment".[16] Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects. The Sunni concept of predestination is called divine decree,[17] while the Shi'a version is called divine justice. Unique to the Shi'a is the doctrine of Imamah, or the political and spiritual leadership of the Imams.[18]"

Again, this simply quotes a source (in this case the Qur'an), and goes on to discuss the differences between the various flavors of Islam. Again, I don't see Wikipedia adopting a "normative definition" for purposes of the article.

I absolutely do not see any sect or denomination of Islam "tagged" as falling outside a "normative definition".

Turning back to this article, I would have no problem adding a section that discusses the Nicene Creed and the role it plays in the Christian Community. But guess what?

It's already there!

At the very top of the article, in the very first section (Beliefs), the very first subsection is Creeds. Here's what it says:

=== Creeds ===

Main article: Creeds

Creeds (from Latin credo meaning "I believe") are concise doctrinal statements or confessions, usually of religious beliefs. They began as baptismal formulae and were later expanded during the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries to become statements of faith.

The Apostles Creed (Symbolum Apostolorum) was developed between the second and ninth centuries. It is the most popular creed used in worship by Western Christians. Its central doctrines are those of the Trinity and God the Creator. Each of the doctrines found in this creed can be traced to statements current in the apostolic period. The creed was apparently used as a summary of Christian doctrine for baptismal candidates in the churches of Rome.

Since the Apostles Creed is still unaffected by the later Christological divisions, its statement of the articles of Christian faith remain largely acceptable to most Christian denominations:

• belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit
• the death, descent into hell, resurrection, and ascension of Christ
• the holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
• Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful.

The Nicene Creed, largely a response to Arianism, was formulated at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople in 325 and 381 respectively and ratified as the universal creed of Christendom by the First Council of Ephesus in 431.

The Chalcedonian Creed, developed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, though rejected by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, taught Christ "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably": one divine and one human, and that both natures are perfect but are nevertheless perfectly united into one person.

The Athanasian Creed, received in the western Church as having the same status as the Nicene and Chalcedonian, says: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance."

Most Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants alike) accept the use of creeds, and subscribe to at least one of the creeds mentioned above.

Many evangelical Protestants reject creeds as definitive statements faith, even while agreeing with some creeds' substance. The Baptists have been non-creedal “in that they have not sought to establish binding authoritative confessions of faith on one another.” Also rejecting creeds are Restorationists, a movement formed in the wake of the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century United States.

== Endnotes ==

So what is it, precisely, that you'd like to say about the early creeds of Christianity that isn't already in there? EastTN (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter (tim), have you actually read the Mormonism article? It is very inclusive of all religious groups that make claims to the term. This contradicts your statements above. Bytebear (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The current edit war (Help Wanted, Please)

Mainly between User:Afaprof01 and User:IronAngelAlice I personally find edit wars repugnant, ill-mannered, and disruptive. Yet here I am in one. In hopes of bringing this to some logical conclusion so we can cease and desist this wasteful process that certainly doesn't reflect positively on Christianity, I ask for the opinions and recommendations of our editor colleagues on this Talk Page. In other words, "consensus." I'll state what have been the divisive issues and my reasons for reverting User:IronAngelAlice's persistent reversions. IronAngel hopefully will do likewise:

1. Section subheading User:IronAngelAlice==In the United States and Canada==
User:Afaprof01==Wide ranging beliefs and practices ==

The first sentence reads in part: "A wide range of beliefs and practices is found across the world.... To change it to "In the United States and Canada" is incomplete. These ARE wide-ranging beliefs and practices.

2. Section subheading and content User:IronAngelAlice==2007 poll of Americans==
User:Afaprof01==Empirical study of differences among believers ==

"2007 poll of Americans" does not do justice to the research. "2007" in not significant since this is only "2009" so there's no reason to conclude it is out of date. "Poll" implies something far less scientifically rigorous than was this study. "Americans" is correct (they actually were U.S. as stated in the summary, but that should not be the emphasis. Since there are so very few bonafide research studies of the attitudes of Christians, to find one from a reliable source is a real "find." It is an empirical study; it was made by a professional research firm that did random sampling, controlled surveys, and statistics to make conclusions, rather than simply to quotes experts.

IronAngel persists in putting into the text that the survey was done by the Religious Right. Quote: "A 2007 survey done by the conservative evangelical organization behind "ChristianityToday.com" in the United States found that American Christians...." POV at least. Bringing up the "organization behind" the magazine. I don't know who that is. Is that to infer that CT biased the results? When one reads the results, the surprise is that only 1 in 5 Christians fit the ideal that every pastor/priest would love to have.

IronAngel persists in changing the wording of the introductory paragraph and findings, at time changing the meaning from the original magazine text.

Thanks for your help, Afaprof01 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked into any of the deeper issues (and have no time to do this at the moment). However, including the date of the survey/study is certainly useful. See WP:DATED. Also, some indication of who financed the story is valuable. It's a sad fact that the design of a study (invariably influence by the funder) does tend to bias the outcome (it's easy to do this innocently - depending on how they are asked, people will prefer the first and/or last item of a multiple choice selection, for example). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we definitely should include the year, because we don't know how long that material might stay in the article, and there's no really obvious reason to exclude it. Including some data about the funder of the study is generally considered good form too. It doesn't mean that the study is biased, but it is a good practice in any event. I don't see where the North America vs. world section is right now, but I would think that such material could be included in a "modern" or "current" or similarly titled section, which would be I hope more acceptable to al. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion v. Relationship

Shouldn't it be mentioned that many consider Christianity to be a relationship, not a religion? Emperor001 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The key thing would be to find sources crediting that view, and showing how widespread it is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Does a large population in my Church, a comic published by a Christian publication, and public statements by the President of Liberty University count? Emperor001 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to the first two, the short answer is no. See what Wikipedia says about sources for the long answer. The third one could be a source, if the president were an authority on religions. But we must also take neutrality and context into account. The claim strikes me as hyperbolical, but even if it isn't, how can we make a claim that presupposes the existence of an eternal Christ while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The two views are not mutually exclusive. Many Christians view a personal relationship with Christ as an essential element of the Christian religion.EastTN (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes and Anglicanism

I'm a new editor, so I can't yet edit this page myself. I thought I'd point out that though the text in the section Main grouping of Christianity has been changed to say that there are "four" main groupings, the reference still says that there are "three" (Anglicanism is excluded). Personally I don't think Anglicanism should be treated separately, but if that's what the consensus is, we should at least have an appropriate source. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the book by Rhodes - not the on-line page - that identifies the Anglican church as separate from Protestantism. It really does depend on the source you look at. Many like the "big three" approach of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, but many other sources treat Anglicanism as a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism. Given that we're writing an encyclopedia, it seems to me that it's worth getting into that level of detail - especially since seeking a "via media" really has shaped the nature of Anglicanism (and it's relevant to readers today - for instance, it helps understand how Anglicans unhappy with the direction of the Anglican churches might naturally seek a new how in the Catholic church rather than, for instance, in a Lutheran or Baptist church). EastTN (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Also this seems to group E. and O. Orthodox together... 118.90.41.120 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It does put them in the same subsection, but it also goes to some length to mention both separately with links to the appropriate articles on each. Getting the right level of detail into a summary article like this one is difficult. If you were to dig into some of the archives of past discussions, you'd see that I've argued for further subdivisions within the "Protestant" category. I think there's benefit in keeping "Orthodox" as a top-level category to help readers think about the primary divisions of Christianity. If the section grows to where it makes sense, though, I would not object to creating sub-headings under it for Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. That's a lot like what I was thinking would be good for further organizing the "Protestant" category. EastTN (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems. "Wikipedia's nomenclature" calls the top-level category Eastern Christianity which it says includes E and O Orthodox :p

Sorry for bringing the thread off topic... In any case, the classification of Anglicanism varies from author to author (obviously). (Suppose someone does decide to justify its classification on this page. Within Protestant because "it's not RC or Eastern". Separately because "it says it claims to continue the primitive "catholic" faith of Britain". All of that, of course, is forbidden by WP:OR.) So we should get a few authoritative, sufficiently general but sufficiently specific (!) texts and take into account their views. 118.90.41.120 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Wikipedia's nomenclature" - there seem to be several different taxonomies used is the various articles on Christianity - but I have put Eastern Christianity in as a "see also" link in that section. I'll try to work that distinction between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity into the text on "main groupings" as well. We should find an appropriate source to document that split (I know there are some; I've seen that distinction before).

Clearly, the sources do use different splits as well. I think the trick here is to find a taxonomy that works well for readers, is at the right level of generality for this article, and can be supported by reliable sources. My sense is that the same author will split things differently depending on the purpose and target audience of a particular work; it may make sense for Wikipedia to do the same. EastTN (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction.

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but "born-again" needs a closing quote: "dentify themselves simply as "Christians" or "born-again Christians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.125.62 (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's been fixed now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this Possible

How Come That the Main article of Christianity Mentioned The Word Islam One Time Only in a Huga Article Like that ,,,, i think thats Not Fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.116.250 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mention the word aardvark at all, and I don't see the relevance of either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon - Please use some form of grammar when posting on talk pages. I concur with DJ Clayworth. NickCT (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus=mythical

The article states that the religion is based on Jesus of Nazareth, but there's no real evidence to support his having existed. Outside of the Bible and the bits now proven to have been added to other texts. It should be stated that he is a mythical figure. 70.49.241.9 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The opinion that Jesus did not actually exist is a minority one, even among non-Christians. While such a view is worth mentioning (and is mentioned) in the article Jesus of Nazareth it's pretty irrelevant to Christianity. As we say in the intro, Christianity is based on "Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament". DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's a distinction here to be made between a myth and a hoax. Those who believe he never existed believe the earliest Christians perpetrated a hoax. This is different from a myth. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's actually more evidence for his existence than most ancient historical events. Copius biblical materials, they far outmass other ancient documents recovered, and of course there's the likes of the historian Josephus a Jew i.e. not a Christian, who didn't contest the fact that Jesus was different. Few disbelive in the existence of Troy for which there was only ever mythical hints and of course millions believe in evolution for which no transitional forms have yet been found despite the prophet Darwin predicting their existence last millenia :)- 203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Your misinformed, inflammatory and unrelated remark on evolution does not belong here. In regards to the topic, "Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament" is just barely acceptable in conveying the concerns of original poster.

Jesus being mythical is an excuse ppl use in order to deny his existence. For some reason, ppl dont want Jesus to exist. Portillo (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The evolution bit was supposed to be a mite tongue in cheek. My argument was primarily that textual support for the Biblical Jesus exists, primarily in ancient biblical documents but also in other sources. Whether you accept the validity of the textual support is of course another matter - History 101. As regards the evolution it is a clear case of belief, Creationist, ID, evolution etc. The transitional forms could be transitional forms or hybrid designs or ... Common evidence is interpreted and/or denied according to prior beliefs, assumptions and ways of thinking. Okay it's veering a mite off track so I shall steer clear of turning this into a CvEvXYZ debate.203.25.1.208 (talk)

1.5-2 billion is GROSSLY underestimating the world's Christian population

nevermind the fact that the second largest religion islam does not allow freedom of religion/persecutes anyone who calls themselves Christian, India and China persecuting the church manipulating their numbers, Christianity is AT LEAST 2.1 BILLION STRONG, that's the lower estimate given on the world religions page. it should be noted on the Christianity page that Christianity is the FASTEST GROWING RELIGION IN INDIA, AFRICA, CHINA and it's strongly evident that it is in muslims countries too (this would be muslims converting, not the result of Christians moving into those countries). altogether, you can see even though Christianity is undeniably the largest religion its numbers are probably underrepresented THE MOST out of all the major religions. i don't think anyone would really be surprised if there are 3 billion Christians in the world right now. history shows that the church thrived when it was under persecution not surprised that's happening in India, Africa, China, muslim countries. Grmike (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)grmike

Many people give many estimates for how many Christians there are. If you think the numbers we give here are wrong, you have to find a reliable source that gives the numbers you think and then you can change the numbers. However when you have found the source you should talk about it on this page first, so that other editors agree.

Some of the reasons incidentally for the lower figures is that there are many people who answer "Christian" when asked what religion they are, even though they have never been to church, believed in God or done anything remotely related to Christianity. Some of the counts exclude people like that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. The fact in question is the number of living "christians". The first thing you would Think one would want to do is have a means for determining who is a christian. This is more or less ignored and much wrangling then ensues over fallacious calculations. Innit funny how very sparse critical intelligent thinking is? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issue here. The question is: do you count someone who says they are Christian, but never goes to church? Or goes to church once a month? Or goes to church but doesn't actually believe in God? Or only those who claim a personal faith? Different counts use different criteria, and that (partially) explains the differences. You would have the same problem counting the number of conservatives, or communists, or atheists in the world. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

NAK. I didn't say that identification was easy, just essential. Your reply makes my point about general intelligence. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a question of whether anyone would be surprised or what the reasoning is behind the estimation, but whether there are reliable sources that make the estimate relevant to wikipedia's standards for inclusion. In this case, it looks like a number of reputable sources (including the CIA world fact book and WP itself) agree with your numbers for an upper estimate, but the lower estimates also come from reliable cited sources (the McGrath and Hinnells refs). I'd also guess this has been a subject of (perhaps lengthy?) previous discussion here. /ninly^(talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, but CIA world fact book is. I calculate their figures at 2.2 billion so I'll update the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-incarnationalists in the lead

Thank you for your message concerning my edit to the article on Christianity. You claimed that the "vast majority" of Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate and that therefore this statement should be placed in a paragraph describing all Christians in general, rather than the following paragraph, which discusses differences between Christians. I do not know where you are getting your statistics from, but I believe you are mistaken. According to a 2002 survey published by the Barna Group (http://www.barna.org), only 79% of Christians in the United States believe God is one being in three separate and equal persons—God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit. According to the 2001 US Census, section 79 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/pop.pdf), 159,506,000 adults identify themselves as Christians. This would mean that, circa 2001-2002, 33,496,000 American Christians (21% of 159,506,000) were nontrinitarian. Now I realize that we are not exactly talking about the Trinity here, but by and large most nontrinitarians do NOT believe Jesus is God incarnate, the only significant exception being Oneness Pentecostals, and they are a small group indeed. So, by attributing the belief in Jesus as God incarnate to Christians in general, you are not only marginalizing about 1/5 of the Christian population, but also entire denominations. --Donbodo (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets look at these figures. 79% qualifies is a pretty big majority, in my view, but maybe it doesn't quite count as 'vast'. Most nontrinitarian groups are US based, so the number of Trinitarians worldwide is undoubtedly much larger. This is even more likely to be the case given that outside the US Roman Catholicism is much more prevalent than inside.

Now let's consider that many nontrinitarians are in fact Modalists, who DO believe that Jesus is God incarnate. The number who disagree with this is going to be very,very small. I rest my case. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it an error to attempt to say how many "Trinitarians" there are in the world because there are no references to support it. However, what we can demonstrate is how many churches teach a Trinitarian doctrine. I have not seen anyone compile a comparative list of all 36,000 denominations and their doctrine, but we can develop a list of the largest.

Donbodo, this doctrine of the Trinity is foundational for the largest Christian churches. In fact, simply denying this doctrine will put one outside of Christianity for some churches. This fact, as you have stated, is the majority view. I have always thought we approach topics from the majority position first and then include significant minority views.

Your references appear to be of value (though they focus on what individuals believe rather than the more easier what churches teach). In my life I have met very few people who actually understood the doctrine of the Trinity; most are simply good at parroting phrases long since learned, but that does not matter much.

I would be interested in hearing from others on your proposal of changing the first paragraph to a more inclusive statement and moving the Trinity doctrine to a following paragraph. Maybe we simply focus on Jesus Christ in the opening paragraph?--^StormRider 06:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Donbodo's edits were not actually about the Trinity. He removed a statement saying Christians believe Jesus is "God incarnate", which is much better understood and much more foundational. The trouble, just like every previous time we've had this discussion, is that if we try to describe every possible variant of Christianity in the intro we end up with a 100k intro which nobody reads, or we restrict ourselves to things only all Christians agree on 100%, which means we say nothing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DJ also has a point. We have talked about this intro for countless hours. The truth is that Christians as a body have a very fractured belief system. For example, if you take the Apostles Creed as used by the Catholic Church and attempt to get support by all Christians (even excluding the language about the one Catholic Church), and we would have disagreement. At what point of common belief do we draw the line?

In re-reading the introduction again today I see no problem with the text and I am a non-Trinitarian i.e. the concept of one substance is meaningless to me pesonally. I think the language is the right language.--^StormRider 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "undue weight," because I am not suggesting an addition to the article. The issue here is that we have a statement made that is not verifiable. There is nothing to substantiate the claim that Christianity necessarily includes belief in Jesus as God incarnate. Would you accept a statement like this: "Human beings are between 4 and 7 feet tall." No, because it suggests that those who are taller or shorter than this are not human beings. A better statement would be: "Human beings are usually--or tend to be--or on the average are--between 4 and 7 feet tall." Similarly, when it is said: "Christians believe Jesus is...God having become man," you are suggesting that those who do not believe this are not Christians. So a better statement would be to say: "Most Christians believe Jesus is God having become man," or something like that. But here is an additional problem: The other affirmations in the sentence, that Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, that he is the savior of humanity, and that he is the Messiah, are universally believed by Christians. They thus are on a completely different level than the belief that Jesus is God become man, which is not universal. It therefore should be placed among beliefs that are more akin to it. --Donbodo (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The incarnation of Christ has historically been considered a foundational doctrine by the a clear majority of Christians. We can debate whether 79% is the right figure or not, and whether it should be characterized as a "vast" majority, but it's pretty clear that in any period of church history if you'd put the question to a general vote among Christians, the idea that the incarnation is a basic tenet of Christianity would have won by a wide margin. The article talks about the theological disputes about the nature of Christ in the section on Jesus Christ and non-trinitarian understandings of Christianity in the section on non-trinitarians. The lead is trying to answer the general question "what is Christianity like" for a reader who may be Buddhist, Daoist, Confucian or an atheist. Describing what most Christians have historically believed in the lead, then backfilling with details and nuances in the body of the article, seems completely appropriate. EastTN (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with EastTN's preceding comments. In general, but for all practical purposes, the incarnation of Christ is a foundational Christian believe. Take it away and you don't have Christianity. No mainstream Christian denomination or group as a whole denies the incarnation of Jesus. That's not to say that there aren't individuals who identify themselves as Christians that don't even know about Jesus being "God made flesh," or perhaps know the concept but either disagree or haven't thought it through. As said above, the incarnation of Jesus Christ is a "basic tenet of Christianity." I fail to understand User:Donbodo's assertion that son of God, savior of humanity, and Messiah are universally believed by Christians (very true!) but God become human is not. How are they on a completely different level than the belief that Jesus is God become man? If one accepts only the human nature of Jesus Christ without his divinity, how can they believe he is savior, Messiah, or even son of God? Notice we are not getting into Hypostatic union or Trinitarianism.

For reference, Incarnation (Christianity) article says: "The doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is central to the traditional Christian faith as held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, Protestants and the Bible."

Also for reference, Incarnation, the section on Christianity reads: "The Incarnation...is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians. Alternative views on the subject (See Ebionites and the Gospel according to the Hebrews) have been proposed throughout the centuries (see below), but all were rejected by mainstream Christian bodies. In recent decades, an alternative doctrine known as "Oneness" has been espoused among various Pentecostal groups (see below), but has been rejected by the remainder of Christendom.

When we reach consensus on how to say it here, we should make those other two articles agree with this one. Thanks! Afaprof01 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism

While there are plenty of citations saying that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, it's quite obviously not, these sources are clearly incorrect. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Lucifer, Gabriel (or any angel for that matter), all separate entities, and all have powers that would be described as god-like. People constantly pray to angels, which counts as worshiping angels. If the belief in Zeus in ancient Greece is considered polytheism, it seems blatantly obvious that Christianity follows the same label. Why is there no mention of this whatsoever in this article? Neoform (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check the archives this has been discussed ad nauseum. It is a monotheistic religion. Soxwon (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it has been brought up so often because it's very clearly an error and should be fixed?

I suggest that for the sake of neutrality, the line "Christianity is a monotheistic religion", be changed to say "Christianity is considered by Chrisitans to be a monotheistic religion", as this would be far more accurate (since it's very likely that all the citations for this topic are from Christians themselves). Neoform (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been brought up slightly less often than the people saying that Obama was born in Kenya,or the CIA was responsible for 9/11. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Many religions have things like angels and are still monotheistic. And a core part of the Trinity doctrine is monotheism. As an aside, obviously Obama is American (I'd think they'd be sure not to let a person who wasn't born in America in office) and obviously the CIA didn't commit 9/11 as they wouldn't attack their own nation's economy (WTC) and their own nation's military (Pentagon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBNKO (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. This is completely off topic.Neoform (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's off-topic as your suggestion that the frequency of bringing up a question is related to it's correctness.

There are a huge number of extremely reliable academic sources that state clearly that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and a very small number of people that consider it not to be - almost all of whom are opponents of Christianity. Deciding that the 'few' are somehow 'correct' is what we at Wikipedia call Wikipedia:Original research and is not allowed in articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no original research required to make the change I suggested above. This is an issue of neutrality, of which you seem to be lacking as you are taking a clearly aggressive stance against my suggestion in your implication that I am an "opponent" of Christianity. Neoform (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The view you are proposing is held by so few people that it is not worth mentioning here. See Wikipedia:Undue weight. It would be akin to saying "Evolution is believed by Evolutionists to be the origin of spieces", or "The Earth is believed by some to be a sphere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is no such thing as an 'Evolutionist', this is an invalid argument. Christianity as a monotheistic religion is self described by Christians and non-Christians tacitly agree because they have no specific interest in questioning the claim, however it is clearly false. You can claim it has undue weight, but it is clearly a falsehood to begin with and thus should not be explicitly stated without modification. The vast majority (if not all) of citations for this claim are from Christian sources. Neoform (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I can't see any evidence of an aggressive stance here, neither can I see any rhyme of reason behind the proposed change. --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reading the policies that Wikipedia has used to handle similar situations elsewhere, and maybe some of the other discussions in the archives of this talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is the reason. Articles on wikipedia are not supposed to cater to believers of the article's content, but instead to anyone/everyone. If Christians believed that 2 + 2 = 5, how would you word that in the article? Would you say "2+2=5" or would you say "Christians believe 2+2=5"? The answer is quite obvious. Neoform (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even excluding Christians themselves, a huge majority of sources consider Christianity to be a monotheistic religion. I recommend a good, scholarly book on comparative religions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neoform, you need to read WP:Weight, a book as recommended and also apply a bit of logic. Under the circumstances you mention I would say "Christianity involves the belief that 2+2=5". Talking about religion is very different from talking about maths. You won't find a dictionary or equivalent that says that Christianity is polytheistic. Looks like POV pushing to me. If you have a substantive 3rd party source lets look at it, otherwise please drop this. --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange that you should say this is different from math, because this is exactly a problem of math. Mono vs Poly, the difference being numbers. Neoform (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: What possible citations can I provide on this topic? Do you want me to find a citation that 1 = 1 and 2 > 1? Even if I provided a citation on this subject, you would then turn around and state that this view is a minority view (since Christians account for a massive portion of the world, and the vast majority of the English world). This entire discussion is skewed against neutrality. As a contributor, you should really be more interested in neutrality than you seem to be. Neoform (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's your interpretation as to what should be counted as a god against the 'poly'. Note that Pharao's wizards also had supernatural powers (turning sticks to snakes), and that the Shaitan is the Islamic version of Christianity's devil. So I could make a claim that there is no monotheistic religion... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You very well could; at present, I am not making that argument. Neoform (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several citations provided in the article, and many thousands of others that could be provided, to back up the article's current statement. Why would you find it difficult to provide citations for your point of view? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a point of view, this is an obvious and factual error that is not open to interpretation. I can't find any citations that one is equal to one or that two is greater than one, does that mean it isn't the case? In any case, if you need a citation that badly, then the dictionary should suffice: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polytheism , "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." If you also cite this article itself, then you'll see that Christian religions very clearly meet the requirement of a Polytheistic religion.Neoform (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is again your personal interpretation of what counts as a god. Find a non-fringe reliable source that states that Christianity is a polytheistic religion - then we can talk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat; This is not a point of view. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gods if you reference the non-capitalized definition of a god, "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality." you can very clearly see that angels are gods, even if lesser ones, they are still gods. Citations are not easily available for this because Christians will likely view this as inflammatory or contradictory their beliefs, which I suspect is the main opposition to my suggested change; this opposition however is clearly biased and does not deserve merit. Neoform (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything you are writing is what we call Wikipedia:Original research, which as I said above is not allowed. Please read that article carefully and you will discover why it is not permitted. Please make sure you understand the way Wikipedia works before criticising. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly original research. Citation or silence I think neoform --Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of research. At what point does reading the dictionary definition of a word constitute original research? Simplistic/literal deduction is not research by anyone reasonable person's definition. Please provide a citation that this is original research. Neoform (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article I linked to above? I find it pretty clear. Which part did you not understand? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering there's nothing original about what I've stated, your link does not apply, nor does it explain how it's original research. Neoform (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article it explains why it is considered original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "go read the article, it explains my argument perfectly" argument. In fact, all the article describes is original research, of which I have done none. Looking up words in the dictionary and citing them is called citation, not original research. Nice try though. Neoform (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the part where it says any unpublished research counts as original research? It's the first sentence, so I expected you to at least read that far. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How could I not? But what does that article have to do with anything? This is not new or original, I'm not the only one who has brought this error up, and it need attention. Neoform (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is Wikipedia policy on these matters. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Neoform, let me explain this as simply as possible. Find an academic and/or scholarly source that says that Christianity is polytheistic and we'll talk. You are not a reliable source, and right now all you are offering is your interpretation of how to apply a definition. I, as a Presbyterian, find your interpretation quite amusing as I do not worship angels, do not pray to saints, and believe that the holy trinity is in fact one. A vast majority of protestants also belief this to be true. That you are trying to assert otherwise is why we rely on RELIABLE sources rather than individual editor assertions. Soxwon (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you stating your views as if they are relevant to this discussion? (Your amusement is equally irrelevant) I am asking for this article to be modified to be more neutral; you are opposing this change on the basis that you are Christian and do not hold the described beliefs in angels due to your sect's lack of belief in angels, this has no bearing whatsoever on the subject. My 'interpretation' is the literal one. If angels are part of a religion, and angels are imbued with god-like powers, they (from a neutral viewers vantage) are rightfully considered gods. This is no different than any/all Greek gods (other than Zeus) being considered a god. This is an unbiased and neutral viewpoint, something you are clearly lacking based on your arguments. Neoform (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, one more time: We include things in Wikipedia only because they are printed in reliable sources, which include such things as scholarly journals and articles by respected experts on the topic. Period. Experts in comparative religion and anthropology say Christianity is a monotheistic religion. They define such terms, not us. If you can provide an academic or scholarly source that states, in no uncertain terms, that Christianity is a polytheistic religion, we can talk. That is exactly what merits its inclusion in Wikipedia -- not our discussions on talk pages over the definitions of gods, divinity, plurality, or anything else. /ninly^(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never asked for this article to be modified, labeling Christianity a polytheistic religion (even though I feel it is). The reason I haven't is because I don't have a citation that says the words "Christianity is a polytheistic religion", despite it being one (which can easily be deduced by merely reading (on wikipedia) about Christian angels and reading the dictionary definition of the words "gods" (non-capitalized) and "polytheism"). I have however asked for the first sentence to be made more neutral. Right now it makes a claim that can only be true if the reader is himself a Christian; this is not neutral. You will likely be unable to provide a citation from an unbiased source on this subject, which is why the mention of monotheism should be clarified (to state that Christians believe their religion is monotheistic) or removed. No argument (other than clamoring for citations where citation is not needed, there has not been a single unbiased argument against my suggestion yet).Neoform (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is the assumption that ONLY christians view their religion as monotheistic which is entirely at odds with reality (unless Encyclopedia Britannica is a strictly Christian organization). Soxwon (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing EB is the same as citing wikipedia, I'm not even sure why this form of citation is allowed to begin with. Neoform (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure there is any value in continuing this line of discussion, but I will add my two cents. As has been stated you need a reference for your position, if you don't have one, there is not reason to continue sharing opinions. There are those who have leveled this claim against Christianity; Muslims have long accused Christianity of not being monotheistic. You will find others who have discussed Christianity as being henotheistic. However, you will also find a plethora of expert references that clearly define Christianity as monotheistic. If you think the article should also report on a claim of polytheism, just present your reference and let's discuss it. If not, there really is not anything to discuss. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Stormrider. Neoform what I was trying to illustrate is that what you see as god-like powers and evidence of polytheism has been strongly disagreed with by a large portion of the population and mulitple scholarly sources. Hence why you need someone who knows what they're talking about to get it into the article. Soxwon (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked for the inclusion or mention of polytheism, I am asking for the adjustment of the line laying the claim that Christianity "is a monotheistic religion" as it is false, the only citation you need is to the dictionary. Christianity meets the very criteria set out in the definition of the word 'polytheism', this precludes it from being a monotheistic religion. Wikipedia articles should seek neutrality, not simply statements that have citations. If holding a bunch of citations was the only requirement, this article would look more like that of the conservapedia. Neoform (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See above, if it is that simple than apparently Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of monotheism is inferior to yours (and quite frankly I would trust EB over you). Heck, even your own dictionary lists Christianity as monotheistic.Soxwon (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary is a reference, not an authority. It says Christianity is monotheistic simply because so many people lay the same claim, this however does nothing to prove that Christianity is in fact monotheistic. Citing EB is the same as citing wikipedia, I'm not even sure why this form of citation is allowed to begin with. Neoform (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This argument has got out of hand and is no longer about improving the article. I suggest discussing this on your own talk pages. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Neoform (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given Neoforms suggestion can I suggest the water article be split. Clearly ice, liquid and steam are different substances and should be recognised as such by wikipedia :)- 203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Christainity is overwhelming considered monotheistic by scholars and laymen. The idea that it should be called polytheism is either WP:Fringe or close to it. On the other hand, there are certainly a few RS's that speculate as to whether the Trinity is polytheistic in nature (see [[1]],[[2]],[[3]]. Is there perhaps middle ground here? Something like "considered by most to be monothestic", "generally considered monotheistic", "overwhelmingly considered monothestic"?

Of your three links (1) is broken (2) talks about "residual polytheism" but comes down clearly on the side of Christianity as monotheistic, and (3) describes how "classicists [around the fourth century] attacked the Trinity as polytheism and the greatest Christian minds went into showing how it was not so". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not calling for a change. I think it's fine as is. I wonder however if we might give token acknowledgement to Neoform's position? NickCT (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you could wish him well on his talk page. Why would we give token acknowledgement to a fringe theory without any supporting references? --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is RS saying that debate has at least existed (see above). Frankly whether or not the trinity constitutes polytheism is a subjective matter (as is the meaning of virtually any religous parable/concept). If one accepts that a thing is subjective, and that significant debate has existed around that thing, Wikipedia should acknowledge it. As I said earlier, I'm dubious that this debate is significant, but I wonder if we could choose wording that acknowledges even some miniscule dissent on the subject (if to do nothing more than to humur Noeform)? NickCT (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neoforms best bet would likely be to argue that Catholicism's relationship with Mary & the Saints is polytheistic in that they have quasi-divine status. I'm not sure that there is any support for that notion though. As for the Trinity, not a chance.203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If references to ideas about it being polytheistic would be included, the only reason for its inclusion would be if solid references to it are found and enough references to it because, even if the idea is shown to be posited, it might still be undue weight to include it, especially in the lead. Humouring Neoform is certainly not a good reason. That would just give them and other users the idea that it's fine to go making original research contrary to reliable sources and actually get something out of it. Munci (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has already been stated as I'd rather not take the time to read this section, but anyway: It is stated in the Ten Commandments that 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.' If that does not ooze monotheism I don't know what does. Obviously, I'm for Christianity staying as a monotheistic religion. User:aphrodite4497 8:56 pm 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Christianity adherent number

guys, plz, just curious: what is the most recent number for total number of christians around the world? also, how do these people exactly find out? do they, like, take polls for all the countries or something...? ty very much. HAVE A FANTASTIC DAY, DUDES + DUDETTES! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable source is found then information may be added to wikipedia as long as it is cited. As to the specific methodology that actual researchers use... well, that falls outside the scope of this talk page, (which is not a forum for discussing the topic but for improving the article.)Jstanierm (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Hello, we are trying to improve the definition on Wiktionary for the idiom Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. If you are knowledgeable and would like to contribute, please do so on the idioms discussion page. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

the sabbath

{{editsemiprotected}} The following sentence is under the heading "worship" :

"Seventh-day Adventists meet on Saturday (the original Sabbath), while others do not meet on a weekly basis."

Referring to Saturday as the "original" sabbath implies that a new day/new sabbath has replaced it, which is not the case. Sunday is not a new sabbath, but rather the fulfillment of the sabbath. Most Christians do not observe the sabbath, now that it has been fulfilled. Thus, it would be better to say "Seventh-day Adventists meet on Saturday, in observation of the Sabbath, while others do not meet on a weekly basis." --ChristianOrthodox (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While in a technical sense you may be write, use of "the sabbath" to refer to Sunday in Christian circles is very widespread, and more so fifty years ago. Many of the rules of Sunday were simply the rules of the Sabbath transferred to a different date. I think it's reasonable to consider that Sunday celebration is or was a Sabbath celebration for Christians. Let's also remember that this is an overview article. Seventh Day Adventist practices is very much a minority practice, and even mentioning it is stretching the bounds of Wikipedia:Undue weight; I think more than a single sentence is far too much. It would certainly be worth going into more detail in a more specialised article.

Secondly your view that Sunday is a 'fulfilment of the sabbath' is by no means a universal view. See here for example. Many evangelical groups consider Sunday not to be a 'fulfilment of the sabbath' but simply a convenient and traditional day on which to meet, with nothing to set it apart theologically from other days. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why not simply delete the parenthetical: (the original Sabbath), given that it is not technically correct and not even important to the gist of the sentence? Leaving it there implies that there is a Sabbath besides Saturday, and many Christian groups do not accept that teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.189.168 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you – I've gone ahead and removed the "original Sabbath" bit, as it doesn't particularly need to be there. JamieS93^❤ 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Christianity Monotheistic according to Judaism

I read the long debate above about the Monotheistic yes-or-not nature of Christianity. I just wanted to add the Judaism point of view (as Judaism was the first monotheistic religion, and had to deal with all philosophical and theoretical questions about it centuries before Christianity was born).
According to the most reliable Jewish authority, Maimonides (Mishne-Tora, Book of Knowledge, Laws of Idolatry and Gentile Customs, Chapter 9, verse 4), Christianity is considered Paganism, in contrast with Islam which he considers almost purely Monotheistic. That's for 2 reasons:

• Christianity assumes a human-being as God (Incarnation) - that's impossible logically and theologically + forbidden by the Bible (OT)
• Christians Worships other entities than God - that's forbidden by the Bible (OT)
  

In spite of that, Maimonides praised Christianity (and Islam) for "paving the road" for the future Messiah by spreading the words of God etc. Other mediaeval Jewish scholars stated, though, that since Christians themselves are debating about trinity etc., and actually they do not worship idols like the ancient pagans, they shouldn't be considered as pagans, at least not in the "Biblical" meaning.
Since the Mediaeval, with the maturing of christian philosophy and reduction of "real" Idolatry in it, the main stream of Jewish scholars will differ between Christian theology (which is NOT Monotheistic, even though it's not paganism) and between Christian people, which are considered Monotheistic, especially the Protestants.

Bottom line - according to contemporary Judaism, Christianity is NOT Monotheistic, but is also NOT paganism.

--אברם העברי (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 (Proper disclosure - The signed above is a Jew...)

If you are citing Rambam correctly, then he was contradicting himself. If Jesus is God (apparently your first point), then Christians do not worship other entities than God (apparently your second point). In reality, Rambam was simply misunderstanding the Christian doctrine -- which is fine, since no one expects Rambam to be a Christian theologian. He is a Jewish scholar, and no more required to be expert on Christianity than John Calvin to be an expert in Judaism.

It is safe to say that notable Jewish leaders, such as Rambam (with citations), regarded Christianity to be not purely monotheistic. On Wikipedia we can and should make these types of notations in articles. Although seemingly similar however, we cannot say that Christianity IS such and such because Jewish sources say so.

The first is an objective recognition of a subjective judgement. The second is a subjective pronouncement from someone who cannot possibly be an expert on Christianity.

In short, Wikipedia articles do not establish ultimate reality. We merely report subjective statements in their historical settings.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 (Proper disclosure - The signed above is also a Jew...)

Thanks for the comprehensive reply - Though I must say you made me laugh :) Let me phrase it mathematically:

§ 1. Worshipping GOD is OK

§ 2. Jesus = GOD

§ → Worshipping Jesus is OK...

Well, logic & Christianity were never good friends... What missing is of course -

§ 3. Jesus = Human being

§ 4. Human being ≠ GOD

§ → Worshipping Jesus is NOT OK...

So I think Rambam was right here, other way every idolrtary would be considered monotheistic.

But I see you're a much better wikipedian than me - Can you add your phrasing to the article? I think it's important to acknowledge the Jewish perspective here, since after all - we have some kind of Copyright on both Christianity & Monotheism, don't we?... I mean, it amazes me to see how little do Christians know of their origin (=Jeish people) and what that origin thinks of their beliefes
--אברם העברי (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of Judaism about Christianity are not really appropriate for this article, which is an overview of Christianity itself. These opinions, properly sourced, would probably be fine in an article on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, or about Judaism itself (Jewish opinions are more relevant to Judaism than Christianity) but they are too detailed for this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Even by the self-described 'Jewish' logic above, Christians associated with the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are certainly monotheists. Witnesses accept neither God-incarnation nor any worship but that of Almighty God (nor are Witnesses trinitarians); one might guess that Jehovah's Witnesses must enjoy unique respect from Judaism.

• “We Worship What We Know”, The Watchtower, September 1, 1984, page 28, "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was “God incarnate,” a “God-man,” according to the philosophical Incarnation theory"
• "Questions From Readers", The Watchtower, November 1, 1964, page 671, "Trinitarians who believe that Jesus is God, or at least the second person of the triune God, do not like to have Jehovah's witnesses say that it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. To the trinitarians that means denying worship to Jehovah God. However, ...Jesus referred to the book of Deuteronomy and said, according to the King James Version: “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matt. 4:10) By those words Jesus debarred his followers from worshiping him.

Incidentally, Witnesses are also remarkably strict against "idolatry" (see here and here).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use these pages to preach, Tam. You know as well as I do that there are equally valid scripture verses which lead people to exactly the opposite conclusion, and which JWs "don't like". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
I completely reject the notion that my comment above is "preaching".
I stated what JWs believe and then I quoted two and cited two references to establish that JWs do in fact believe as I had stated. I didn't state my personal beliefs. I didn't advocate monotheism or nontrinitarianism or a rejection of idolatry, or even imply that those beliefs are admirable. "Remarkable" means "worthy of remark".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second quote looked more like someone trying to persuade others that JWs were right rather than explaining what their beliefs were. Either way, this discussion is now a long way off the topic of improving the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The second quote is from The Watchtower; it doesn't quote User:AuthorityTam.
Let's stipulate that both Jehovah's Witnesses and The Watchtower are preachy. An editor who accurately and succinctly quotes source material is thorough and encyclopedic.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are (rightly or wrongly) viewed as polytheists by mainstream Christians, because they have multiple gods; a big Jehovah god and a little Jesus god. Whether right or wrong (and that's not our place to decide), it is a known position. It' interesting that this came up in an exchange regarding Jewish understandings of Christianity, since Jews think Christianity is a form of shituf -- or partnership of beings with God. The irony is that the Jewish concept of shituf is the same as the Christian concept of the Arian heresy... which is precisely what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

To make this more clear, Jews THINK Christians hold Jehovah's Witness beliefs! (which they do not).

None of this is a value judgment (I'll leave room for people to decide which doctrine represents God's opinion of Himself).

That said, I'm agreed with DJ Clayworth on all counts. This thread probably doesn't have anything helpful to the article at hand, but our Israeli contributor does have some excellent points about what need to be included in one of he other articles DJ suggested. If you guys point me to the right article, I'll be happy to work with Abe.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is useful because it so plainly contrasts with my initial well-referenced comment. Readers will notice that no verifiable source is offered for the claim that 'Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed as polytheists by mainstream Christians'. Such unsupported bloviations seem of dubious usefulness to the Wikipedia community.
Incidentally, the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" are not synonyms. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

His name is "Abraham the Hebrew." I assumed he was Israeli because he edits the Hebrew Wiki. In any case, you can quote Jehovah's Witness sources all you like -- it doesn't make it mainstream Christianity. You think their trinity is polytheistic and they think your second little Jesus god is polytheistic. And since I don't believe either one I don't care. Wikipedia doesn't make truth and it doesn't care about truth. We just quote sources. And no, I didn't use a source above. I didn't need to. It's like saying the sky is blue. They don't accept you and you don't accept them, and we all need to accept that (without caring who's right or wrong).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Remarkable assumptions. Furthermore, I don't recall sharing my theological beliefs at all.
I happen to believe it unlikely that usable references will support the statement:
* 'Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed as polytheists by mainstream Christians'.
Incidentally, the only 'acceptance' interesting to "me" is that regarding encyclopedic standards at Wikipedia.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief -- even Bruce Metzger said that your translation of John 1:1 was polytheistic, so get over it. The fact that mainstream Christians THINK you are polytheistic doesn't actually make you so. And your opinion that trinitarianism is polytheistic doesn't make it so. And I don't care which of you is right or wrong. Neither do I care if you accept each other. I just note it if I need to, cite it if I'm noting it in an article, and move on. The fact you don't accept each other makes as little difference to me as the fact that Syrian Jews don't accept Gentile converts into their community. It doesn't mean those converts aren't Jews. It just means that Syrians don't accept them. You note it and move on. Regardless, DJ was quite right that we are way way way off anything useful to the article. Can we please let it go? I merely thought it amusing that Jews think mainstream Christians hold Jehovah's Witness doctrines. Well, it is. But that's about all it is. Let's please do something constructive.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I've never even attempted a translation of John 1:1.
Excuse me, but it seems highly improbable that mainstream Christians have opined about my poly-, mono-, or atheism.
Excuse me, but I don't recall implying that trinitarianism is polytheistic.
It will be easier to move on when editors cease their incessant assumptions and over-generalizations.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you're not a Jehovah's Witness. I'm not a Christian. So why are we wasting everyone's time? Let's move on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this "Jehova Witnesses" issue really got out of control... In short words - Jews think that when you worship something per-se (instead of - in the worst case! - as a mean to achieve GOD) - it's not monotheism, that's all. Judaism welcomes every movement twoards that from Catholic\pagan approaches, but as long as Yeshua (aka Jesus) remains worshipping object - it's not monotheism.
That's why the Bible reveals great men's sins, like Moses - so we won't forget that even Moses was a human-being (and agree with me that if there's anyone in the world close to GOD - it's him, not the young Jewish man of Nazerath which wasn't even a prophet) - though it's very encouraging to know that Christians as a whole strive to be considered monotheistic and by that "paving the road" to the prospectively Messiah, if I may close the ring and return to Maimonides' words... .
BTW I am an Israeli, and must say that several things look much brighter after the establishment of our state and the great "Zion Return" of the Jewish people - at least one ancient theological debait was decided then...
--אברם העברי (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I stumbled into this - SkyWriter (Tim) - Maybe you can add Rambam and other Jewish sources there?--אברם העברי (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys enough arguing. We're writing an encyclopedia, remember?

Tim, excellent suggestion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Clayworth. This discussion is not about improving articles. Suggest it ceases and suggest we collapse this section in the talk page. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

christianity as a state religion

On the map 2 is a mistake as Slovakia is set as a country with christianity as a state religion. Slovakia is neutral to all religions (although majority of the citizen are christians). It can be found in the Slovak Constitution in the first articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydrian1 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

James the Veggie

A lot of Jesus disciples were quoted to be vegetarians and tee-totalers although the arguement goes that Jews who did not partake in a weekly sacrificial feast would be in trouble. Anyway, after Jesus death and the scattering of the disciples, his brother James would preach to the congregation. Vegetarianism was part of what James preached and he thought that it was one of the ways of Jesus. A local and rather unsavoury character, violently opposed to Jesus weakling followers, by the name of Saul who had seen Jesus once himself got to learning more about Jesus teachings through stories of James. Saul eventually turned over a new leaf and became a preacher of the ways of Christ renaming himself Paul after a night out homeless trying to sleep with his head on a rock. He also decided to preach that James way of being a vegetarian was weak as a Jew. Shortly afterwards James met an early death through assasination opening a way for Saul/Paul to take over and guide James congregation of what would eventually become the Christian church. Anyway, I don't see any mention of James on this article. Maybe he shouldn't be mentioned here, I don't know. Saul is always considered the major apostle but it's rather interesting to leave a key element out of it entirely. Caretaker managers are rarely left out of the history of a football team. ~ R.T.G 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the view of the early church you put forward is a minority one, and you have cited no sources for it. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability to find out how Wikipedia handles these cases.

Secondly this article is an overview of the Christian faith, and a description of one period of it is probably too detailed for this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

James took over from Jesus. He was assasinated. The local sheriff of Nottingham got all his goods. End (or beginning) of story. That is compelling in any book. Nevermind the veggie bit, that's just a bit of jibe I added about about my personal faith. James was the brother and the man. It requires no additional sources to point that out and it is not represented on this article. I wonder, is the purpose of the single-sided viewpoint tags on the Origins section related to this fact? What else could it mean? Are we discussing it with a view to correction? ~ R.T.G 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

James did not "take over" from Jesus. James was an apostle, but Peter was the leader or head of the group after Jesus was resurrected. Where did you read that James was the lead disciple? Also, where is this veggie bit coming from? When DJ is asking for sources he is seeking some reputable source to support your position. If all you are asking for is the mention of James' name in the article maybe something can be worked out naming all of the original apostles. --^StormRider 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Several things about this person are not clear, including whether James the Just was in fact James the Apostle - all of which is another good reason for not getting into the subject in an overview article, since it would take a lot of space to give all the different views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JaimeLaviena, 15 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

• "Christianity." Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
• "BBC—Religion & Ethics—Christianity". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2008-01-03. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help) A number of introductory articles on Christianity.
• "CBC Montreal—Religion—Christianity". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2008-01-03. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help) An overview of Christianity.
• "Netzarim". - Click at 'History Museum' in the left menu. Retrieved 2008-10-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help) The origin of Christianity
• Adena, L. The 'Jesus Cult' and the Roman State in the Third Century, Clio History Journal, 2008.
• Messianic Christianity´s official site
• Christian Social Network which invites the Christian community no matter denomination to spread the word of Christianity.

I would like to make an addition to the external links section of the Christianity page to include Christian.com. My reasoning is simple, it is a social network made for the christian community and taking into consideration the purpose of the Christianity page, a good source of gaining knowledge on Christianity would be a place where all walks of life and denomination have joined together. to discuss beliefs. JaimeLaviena (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have just asked around and Christian.com is a violation of the WP:EL policy, sorry. You can't include it, I'm afraid.Chevymontecarlo. 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I second this. See the previously quoted WP:EL page for more detail. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Love

The whole foundation of Christianity is LOVE.

John 3:16-17(New International Version) :

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

And yet, the word "love" only shows up once in the wikipedia definition of Christianity.

God created us because He loves us, He wanted to have a relationship with Him. He loved us so much that He sent His perfect Son, Jesus the Christ, He who is without sin, to die for us on the cross so that we may reconcile with our Father.

God is our heavenly Father, He loves us His children.

I urge you to please update the website explaining that God is love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.90.138 (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not an evangelical website. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't make this page read like an "evangelical" Protestant tract, that would violate NPOV. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

non-denominational christianity

could somebody add non-denominational christianity to the movements list please?Jigglyfidders (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nondenominational" Protestantism is somewhat of a misnomer; it's more accurately called "Independent Protestantism". As such it is included under the Protestant branch.Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Please Fix the Formatting in the Intro Section?

Just notices that because the TOC is flushed-left, therefore the intro contents are mixing together with the TOC, the result is very unprofessional looking. I don't know much about Wikipedia condes, so could someone please fix that? Thanks! Children of the dragon (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's so obviously not true, why do we need to state in bold that it's not true? We don't do that for articles on novels or films. Ash Loomis (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no "controversy" section, nor much mention at all of all the opposition that this horrible group of child raping freaks receives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.195.27 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We link to an entire article on the Criticism of Christianity. EastTN (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be gross generalization. Barely any Christians rape children. Barely any human beings rape children. The action is abhorrent. If you're referring to the Catholic sex abuse controversy, Catholics are not the only Christian denomination, and there were only a few select cases of abuse. What they did was disgraceful, but saying Christians are a group of "Child raping freaks" is one of the most asinine oversimplified things I've heard on the internet. Sick people rape children. Sick people exist in every race, religion, social class. I'm sorry but that statement makes me sick. 174.1.141.145 (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think that it's obvious that something was going on. Considering that of the fourteen people who would know if it was a lie, five people were crucified (one upside down), one was beheaded, three were definitely killed (although the exact method is uncertain), one committed suicide (admittedly after betraying Jesus), one was speared to death, one was beaten to death, and one was stoned to death. Only one died of natural causes. This doesn't even include the people who believed they had seen and/or heard God, Jesus, or one or more of the saints, and were killed for it. Nobody will die for something they know is a lie, especially like that. Obviously, Christianity can't be simply dismissed as a lie, even if there's no evidence of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.136.194 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus with no established church?

There are numerous other countries, such as Cyprus, which although do not have an established church, still give official recognition to a specific Christian denomination.[167]

Of course it does. It's called the Church of Cyprus; it's autocephalous and under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and has existed for almost 2,000 years. Even various Apostles set foot on Cyprus. How the heck does Cyprus not have an established church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopzz9 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Friends

Could we try to see what the "Christ Pantokrator" from the monastery at Mt. Sinai (St. Catherine's, I think) would look like as the imagine in the "series on Christianity" section? I think this image would be more appropriate. It is more recognizable and also more dynamic. Just a suggestion.

Thanks, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the image he wants. No comment.

Alek2407 (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic church is the continuation

The Christianity branches image is not correct. There have not been any divergence between early christians and the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The catholic church already existed before the great schism and was not created at the same time of the orthodox one. So the orthodoxs separated themselves as explained in the schism documentation. I am correcting the svg file.

Initgraph 14:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree with you but as before, your edit will be reverted as it was not authorized.

(i can not revert things, someone else has too)

Alek2407 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the "Christian Culture" series on Wikipedia?

There is an Islamic Culture series, as well as a Jewish Culture series, but I have failed to uncover one reserved for the Christian culture, which is quite prevalent in our world. Such topics as Christianity in the Middle East, the Apostolic Age, Christianity in Europe, the Crusader Kingdoms, Monastic Culture, and Evangelism may be explored. I understand well that the Christian religion offends and disgusts many people, especially on the internet, where so many upright people gather, but it is nevertheless an important and thoroughly influential idiom.

I insist that such a series be constructed on Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please consider signing your contributions to talk page discussion by appending four tildes (like this: ~~~~) to the end of your comments. The tildes will replaced by an automatically generated signature, which assists in following the flow of discussion (see the end of these two paragraphs for an example). In your case, the signature would include your IP address, but you might also consider creating an account, which provides benefits that may help you contribute to the encyclopedia (including, I hope, a Christian Culture series!).

To address your original question: I agree, it sounds like a good series, and I'm surprised something like that doesn't already exist. People's offense or disgust, on the Internet or elsewhere, has no bearing on what is included in the encyclopedia – the only reason we don't have a series on Christian culture is that no one has worked to compiled one. Feel free to start! There are already several articles that might belong in such a series (e.g., Christianity in the Middle East, Christian pop culture, and several of the articles linked from History of Christianity). /ninly_(talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.196.208.224, 29 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} ==EndNotes

• Psalm 14:1

68.196.208.224 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do we need to do with this link? • ɔ ʃ → 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done:Spitfire19 (Talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Trinity Doctrine Bias

In defining Christians at the very top of the page it currently has a well meaning but biased definition which excludes many Non-Catholics. Not all Christians believe that Jesus and God are the exact same being, belief in this particular points varies between sects and sometimes even within denominations, and it needs to be worded to be more inclusive of Christians who accept Jesus as the Divine Son of God and not as his own father. Acceptance of the Trinity Doctrine is not an absolute necessity of Christianity and should not be treated as such. --216.228.91.174 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any current groups that teach Jesus was his own Father. EGMichaels (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the lead doesn't say enough about the trinity. Jesus being God, which has been key since AD 325, gets slim mention late in the lead. Leadwind (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anger

I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE OFFENSIVE!?! SOMEONE HAD BEST GET RID OF THOSE OFFENSIVE LIES IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE (BELIEFS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamma287 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

fixed the location

If you are talking about any recent vandalism, rest assured it has been fixed within minutes of it's appearance. If you mean content then what do you consider an 'OFFENSIVE LIE'. Alek2407 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was not white

Professional biblical scholarship concerned with the 'quest for the Historical Jesus' points out the obvious fact that Jesus was a Galilean Jew. Therefore, of course he wasn't 'white'. Nor was he black. He is represented in different cultures in different ways - this is different from the question of his actual skin colour. 81.148.252.44 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} I'd rather the picture represented a brown Jesus rather than white. Sorry to sound trivial but this is the representing picture of Christianity and i think it should represent all peoples. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum for this kind of comment. Suggest it is collapsed/blanked. NickCT (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. CrimsonBlue (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was a white man. It says in the bible his HEAD was White as wool. His head was white. White people have white heads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor seems to refer to Revelation 1:14, which has been interpreted as describing the post-human Jesus; the verse also that he has "eyes like fire". I'd guess Iwanttoeditthissh opined on depictions of the human Jesus rather than the pre-human or post-human Jesus. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all Semites are "white"--a fact that I believe notable as it pertains to your arguement. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just looking in the bible and finding one single passage stating that Jesus was most likely white will pass as significant evidence [The bible can be interpreted many ways, who is to say that Jesus was really white, white, or simply whiter than the average person of his time? He may even have been black.] due to the scientific probability that due to his place of birth on earth, and the amount of sunlight the average human received at that time up until the age when he allegedly died clearly proves this quite unlikely. It is also true that as he is a character in a book which was written some 2000 years ago it is also pretty certain that we will never know the truth. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased interpretation on any subject thus we should present the possibility of both arguments simply and concisely baring in mind there are many other articles on similar topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splatcat (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This topic is discussed at some length in the Race of Jesus article. --Richard S (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how bloody often this has been discussed...think ad nauseum and you will almost begin to get it. There are no pictures of Jesus just to state the obvious. We know he was a Galilean Jew and one would think his actual appearance would be similar to that region. However, artwork is artwork and there is no attempt to depict the "real" feature of Jesus because no one knows what he looked liked precisely. If skin color is so important, what about his nose, his hair, the shape of his eyes, his chin, dimples, etc., etc., etc., Please move on and those interested can review the plethora of past conversations in the history of the page. --^StormRider 18:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why this obsession with such a minor human characteristic? Does the amount of love good Christians show their neighbours depend on their skin colour? HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not for me, it doesn't. But I feel pretty certain that around these parts, real Christians are vastly outnumbered by everyone else.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gnosticism

there is a proposal for the creation of Wikiproject:Gnosticism. It is mentioned here as Gnosticism is a cultural impulse that in some of its forms has combined many religions such as Christianity. Its scope will include all gnostic faiths and will serve as a nexus for the improvement of Gnosticism related articles on Wikipedia, If any one would like to join or comment it is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnosticism --Zaharous (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Monotheistic?

Should we really call the Christian belief monotheistic? I know that they believe so - somehow linking these deities into to one-, but from an outsider's viewpoint the religion has may different deities such as the: three arch-deities (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit), other helper deities (Angels), and anti-deities (Satan, Demons, Lucifer). Some denominations go as far to promote human to a semi-holy level (Saints). The Christians may believe that the arch-deities are one by a so-called 'Trinity', but we are still left with the problem of Angels, Devils, Demons, and Saints all who qualify for deity-hood. I propose to change the wording saying that they are "generally accept as a monotheistic religion", but not state it as a truth. The only citations for this are from other Wikipedia articles, a second-source/opinion website, clearly biased books/encyclopedias (written presumably by/for christians, dealing with beliefs not facts), a paper on paganism and a little known encyclopedia (presumably also written from a biased viewpoint). I know the proposal will sound degrading to some but we have to remember that many of us editors on the English Wikipedia are biased as we come from Christian homes. Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased in any way and we should state that the Christians are not monotheistic in its literal meaning. Alek2407 (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Find out how good, reliable sources refer to Christianity and then let's refer to Christianity that way. If the RSs call Christianity "monotheistic," then we should, too. Leadwind (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't change the working— read The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition by F. E. Peters (2005); or O. Skarsaune, 'Is Christianity Monotheistic? Patristic Perspectives on a Jewish/Christian Debate', Studia Patristica xxix (1997), pp. 340-63. Or proposition 11: 'Christianity is a monotheistic faith" in The christian faith by Schleiermacher (1831); JDG Dunn, "Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?", SJT 35 (1982)—the list is pretty long. Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up a few times, and it doesn't usually go far. As Leadwind implies, you'll have to find multiple (non-fringe) reliable sources that call Christianity something other then definitively monotheistic before any such language will make it into the article. /ninly_(talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEU this is not a view of the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.155.132 (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The organization "Messianic Christianity" explains it like this: Based upon the Bible we believe in Henotheism - The worship of ONE God´s (Yehuweh´s (YHWH´s)) Hegemony (- leadership and supreme commander, over all Pantheons), and that means that we are not precluding the existence of other gods or others in the heavens of gods, who may also be worthy of praise.

(By "heavens of gods" we do NOT mean the "heaven" Hades/Sheol where the majority of deceased earthlings are.)

and

We believe that Iesous Christos is a God, but he is not Yehuweh [jeue] (YHWH) God, and he obeys and subordinate himself to his Father, Yehuweh God, even though his Father has "highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name". (This might be the reason why it is a bit hard to understand the Bible regarding this issue, about who is God; Yehuweh God or His Son Iesous Christos (God).) He will rule over Heavens and earths for at least one thousand years, then he will return to his Father what is His. Yehuweh [jeue] (YHWH) God is Alpha and Omega. The first and the last.

After his mission is completed, he will return The Kingdom to his Father.

1 Corinthians 15:28 "But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

Revelation 11:15 "..."The Kingdom of the world did become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as King forever and ever."

And finally:

Revelation 21:6 "And he said to me: "They have come to pass! I am the Al'pha and the O-me'ga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free." http://messianic-christianity.org/ Kindest regards/Tove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skraddarbacken (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So is that 'proof' that Christianity is not fully Monotheistic. (I know that to make an edit i would need way more, but it's a start)

Alek2407 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Without question, canonical, orthodox, conventional/traditional Christianity is monotheistic. The doctrine of the Trinity is complex, and theologians will likely be debating its exact meaning until the Second Coming. But there has been general agreement for nearly 2,000 years that we worship one God who is a tri-unity: Almighty God who in his graciousness allows us to relate to him in three primary ways--as Father, as Son, as Holy Spirit. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one true God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. Jesus, the Son, is one person with two natures: he is fully divine and while on earth was fully human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also divine in nature and is self aware, the third person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is God as spirit. Jesus told his disciples he would not leave them "comfortless," and that he would leave us The Comforter.

There is only one God. Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 44:6,8; Isaiah 45:5,14,18,21,22; Isaiah 46:9; Isaiah 47:8; John 17:3; 1Cor 8:5–6; Gal 4:8–9 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God"Isaiah 45:5 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."Isaiah 44:6 The doctrine of the Trinity is based on the whole of scripture, not in a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three, and that the one God (monotheistic) exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. —AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See that is all biased as you, sir, are looking at Christianity as a truth, not as a belief held by people (I see it no differently then Islam, Judaism, or Greek Mythology). Your only citation is the "bible" which is NOT a reliable source, unless dealing with purely biblical matters (which as stated in my inquiry it is not). And by saying what you just did it sounds like there is more then one God: "They are three distinct persons", but you explain it away with it being divine.

I am not trying to offend your belief as I respect 'your' choice, but please do not impose it upon the world as a truth. Your response was mostly irrelevant though. You also did not explain away (with ¿magicalness?) the other deities (Angels, Demons, Satan, Lucifer, Saints).

(PS: I changed some indent formatting to make the conversation flow more logical)

Alek2407 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your position of neutrality, Alek, but I feel you are coming too hard from the other side. While you are correct that the Bible (or any scripture) does not alone always constitute a reliable source (note: sometimes it can), recognized theological scholarship from within a religious community can be a reliable authority about what that group believes. AFA Prof's argument goes a lot further than his or her personal belief or choice – correct me if I'm wrong here, but part of the point that "the doctrine of the Trinity is complex" suggests that the words three persons don't actually mean what you seem to think they mean – for theological purposes, these are technical terms.

To put it another way: What Christians believe is divine is exactly what should support Christianity's categorization (mono-, poly-, henotheistic, or whatever), and a scholarly, peer-reviewed discussion of the belief system, from within the community of believers, absolutely must inform our understanding thereof. /ninly_(talk) 18:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the protocols of Wikipedia, but I assume I can edit in my two cents here; I hope that's okay.

To put this into a simple perspective for the bewildered initiator of this section, I would like to remind him that the so-called polytheistic elements in Christianity exist in Judaism as well. Angels (like Metatron and Michael), Satan, the Fallen Angels / Demons, and a concept of sainthood (veneration of holy men and prophets, etc) are all quite prevalent in Jewish theology, especially in ancient times. Christian theology takes everything about it which you have considered to be polytheistic in nature from its Jewish roots (with the exception of the Trinity). I find the only difference to be in the application: whereas modern Judaism has all but abandoned certain concepts such as the recognition of angels, Christianity has elevated their status in the public conscience. Moreover, it is quite absurd to imagine that Christians, in their beliefs regarding God the Father and the heavenly entities, are creating new concepts which are not in communion with the Jewish viewpoint from which their religion emerged. If you wish to level the charge of polytheism against Christianity, please recognize that the religion’s dogma and eschatology are not as divergent from Judaism as you may think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 22:53, April 27, 2010

Well i basically gave up on this, but as you may noticed i not once used the word 'polytheistic'. From my experience angels and what not are not really emphasized in modern Judaism and have lesser roles (I also never mentioned any other religions). Even if we assert that angels are not important as in Judaism we are left with the God/jesus problem. I also counter your claim if "[Christian] dogma and eschatology are not as divergent from Judaism as you may think" as they did double the amount of scripture, and created a far greater problem by introducing a new 'protagonist' (Jesus) into their belief.

Alek2407 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake i mentioned other religions as 'subjects' and their relation to pov, but never their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alek2407 (talk • contribs) 22:10, April 28, 2010

On whose authority to do you base your statement that Christianity isn't monotheistic (and if you have questions about Christian faith I can answer them to the best of my ability)? Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My statement is based on the meaning of the word 'Monotheistic', which means 'one deity'. Thank you, but I understand that Christians believe that they only have one god, and that he, as the father, and jesus and the holy spirit are one, by a unexplainable mystery. What i am saying is that, it's great that they believe that, and they can, but the very fact they do does not make it the truth. From an observer's perspective they have at least two deities, who are worshiped equally and outside of explaining why Christians are monotheistic, are totally separate sharing a father/son relationship. Also i may personally believe they are not Monotheistic, but I never said to change the text to saying they are not, just to saying 'generally accepted to be Monotheistic', which is true as most people believe they are, but is quite easily disputed. Alek2407 (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for saying this, but that's not right. You and I don't matter. The fact of the matter is, Christianity is the definition of monotheism according to Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Oxford English Dictionary. You need reliable sources pointing to it being otherwise before you change the wording. As for the other deity question, I was referring to your claims of Satan as another deity and/or angels as deities as well. Soxwon (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that what I believe is irrelevant, but that is why did not make an edit, instead I just started a talk discussion. As for the angels/demons thing, I admit it was really 'cheap' of me to mention them, but Christianity puts a lot more focus on them compared to other 'monotheistic' religions.

I would classify those as biased sources as they are written (most probably) by Christians. Most dictionaries i have seen only mention that it is 'a belief in one god'. Also as for sources, encyclopedias are not expectable for 'qualitative' matters, only quantitative. As for provided sources, look at these. None of them would really be reliable (as i explained in the first comment).

"^ Christianity's status as monotheistic is affirmed in, amongst other sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia (article "Monotheism"); William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity; H. Richard Niebuhr; About.com, Monotheistic Religion resources; Kirsch, God Against the Gods; Woodhead, An Introduction to Christianity; The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Monotheism; The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, monotheism; New Dictionary of Theology, Paul, pp. 496–99; Meconi. "Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity". p. 111f."

That puts Christians in the position to provide a non-biased source.

Alek2407 (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

PS I am moving this to the original discussion as it is not material for my talk page. Please reply there, as i will blank this in a few hours.

Tove is writing: "I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God" [Isaiah 45:5] "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.'"

We, earthlings shall not worship anyone else than YHWH God, but INBI ICHTYS is beside Him, on His right side, also as a god (god, not God). Beside Him, means "also god", but still not YHWH God. INBI ICHTYS will rule for at least one thousand years, and after that he will "subject himself", 1 Corinthians 15:28 "But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

Revelation 11:15 "... The Kingdom of the world did become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as King forever and ever."

We do not believe that The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit is the same person, based primarily on:

John 16:13-15 "However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide YOU into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to YOU the things coming. That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to YOU. All the things that the Father has are mine. That is why I said he receives from what is mine and declares it to you."

They are unanimous as one, a unity, but three individually different Men in the heavens of gods.

YHWH has allowed INBI ICHTYS to rule, because he glorified his Father during his life on earth (and he did so before that as well), so now the Father is glorifying His Son by making him a god again. During his life on earth he was "lesser than Angels". So he was not the Father, or even a god, at the same time. He is not the Father at all, and has never been. He is the Son of the Father (YHWH). He is calling YHWH "abba" (daddy). INBI ICHTYS was and is YHWH´s biological Son. It is not a matter of symbolical speaking, it is so, in reality: John 1:1, 3 "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

We believe that it is like this in the Heavens: Based upon the Bible we believe in Henotheism - The worship of ONE God´s (Yehuweh´s (YHWH´s)) Hegemony (- leadership and supreme commander), over all Pantheons, and that means that we are not precluding the existence of other gods or others in the heavens of gods, who may also be worthy of praise.

http://www.messianic-christianity.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skraddarbacken (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We would also like to explain the matter about the difference between "Messianic Jews" and "Messianic Christians".

"Messianic Jews" are jews by birth (boys are circumcised) who worships Yehuweh [jeue], YHWH, Israel´s God, and believes that INBI ICHTYS was and is The Son of Him and that INBI ICHTYS was and is the Messiah, and also believes that jewish traditions needs to be commemorated, as well as christian traditions.

"Messianic Christians" are christians "in the nations" (inoculated = not jewish by birth (boys are not circumcised) who worships Yehuweh [jeue], YHWH, Israel´s God, believes that INBI ICHTYS was and is The Son of Him and that INBI ICHTYS was and is the Messiah,and also believes that jewish traditions needs to be commemorated, as well as christian traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skraddarbacken (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but as stated above the Bible is NOT a valid source (neither is any other scripture) unless dealing with 'biblical' matters (ie events described in the bible). The definition of Christianity's number of 'deities' is not a biblical matter, but an actual observable fact.

Also your whole thing about the difference between 'Messianic-ism' is irrelevant. By the way is "INBI ICHTYS" your religion's name for 'Jesus', or some other deity from your religion?

Alek2407 (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC) PS I moved the indents.

What is that Messianic guy talking about?

I used to think that Christianity was somewhat un-Monotheistic, but not because of the reasons which you asserted in your original thread. That was my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it is not monotheistic? Alek2407 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Christianity is not monotheistic; there is mention multiple times of other deities throughout the canonical and non-canonical scriptures. You are all very misinformed. Furthermore, Christianity is a cult to a prophet, Jesus, and is only considered separate from Mosaicity (what you would call Judaism, a Roman tax bracket for Jews regardless of faith) due to non-Orthodox beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PS By deities I am referring most literally (as this is text) to other gods. God is only written as God and not god so to refer to the superiority of the Abramic deity of Genesis. There are other gods, which the Roman Catholic Church decided to be marginalised as evil deities as they are not the One. The Abramic god written as God does have a name, also. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PS Christianity, Mosaicity (Judaism), & Islam are all monolatric religions--not monotheistic. There is a clear difference. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Without reliable sources to support your assertions, no one will be adding or allowing others to add such information to the article.Farsight001 (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Experts classify Christianity as monotheistic, and that's good enough for WP. You can have your private opinion about it not really being monotheistic, but what matters is what the experts say. Leadwind (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Largest religion?

I feel the comment that christianity is the largest religion needs to be addressed. First off, Islam is the largest. However as exact numbers are impossible to say, it should be said christianity is ONE OF the largest religions, alongside Islam. 210.185.8.252 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The number of adherents to a religion is notoriously difficult to measure. Many people are "cultural" members of their religion, it being the only significant active one where they live. They have therefore never consciously made a choice, and just tend to follow the rest of the local population in following religious practices. How "official" numbers are created varies widely from country to country. Totals are therefore almost meaningless. I like "...one of the largest religions..." HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"conscious choice" is not relevant in the discussion. The official numbers clearly show Christianity as the largest, and the figures aren't even close. Please support your assumptions with reliable sources. Flash 22:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash - as I have said elsewhere, it's very difficult having a constructive conversation with you. I have already said that "official" figures are problematical, yet your response is simply to refer to "official" figures. To highlight the problem, I will use my own country, Australia, as an example. Religion in Australia will tell you that 64% had Christianity recorded as their religion at the most recent census. It will also tell you that "less than a quarter of those attend church weekly". So what is the official figure for Christians in Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a common complaint for all membership numbers regardless of the organization secular or religious. The issue being discussed is what is the count; it is not how pious each member of an organization is. We don't care that a Rotarian only attends twice a month or that a Muslim only prayed twice a day. They identify themselves as members and therefore they are counted. Let's not confuse the objective or read too much into such numbers. --^StormRider 23:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not even true to say that "They identify themselves as members". Most children have their religion identified for them by someone else. Because of the known inaccuracy of the figures, I submit that an absolute claim that "Christianity is the largest religion" is an example of "...read(ing) too much into such numbers." Hence my agreement that the article should say "...one of the largest religions..." HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't an easy compromise be merely to point out the discrepancy in the article or qualify the statement with, f.e., "officially considered" largest religion? I don't know the issue, but if this is notoriously problematic, then it seems devious to make decisions as to what people "should" know in the event that there exists some discrepancy as to what we do know--it would be like an article about coin-tossing that only talks about tails. On the other hand, if a part of our body of facts about the issue of adherent demographic breadth is that there is some question as to what constitutes demographic breadth, then it should, at the very least, be noted in the main of the article. Even if the disputation is silly, if it's widespread it seems pertinent to note as at least being held by (silly) people. At the very least, saying "...by certain statistical counts." or some such seems favorable. Ignotum per Ignotius (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The official numbers are what they are. You having a personal complaint about how the figures are derived does not discredit those numbers, nor does it merit a change in the article. Flash 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please leave the word personal out of this. I did not initiate this discussion, and have given reasons for an alternative view. Please discuss those reasons. You say "official numbers are what they are". I fully agree. They are not very dependable. What exactly do we mean by "official"? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're having an issue with those numbers without citing any sources which support your claims. That is what I meant by "personal". It was not meant as any sort of attack, I'm sorry if it appears that way. You having a personal complaint about how the figures are derived does not discredit those numbers, nor does it merit a change in the article. And I prefer not to get into semantics, official is self explanatory, the numbers that are released by the relevant organizations/authorities. Flash 04:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly valid to look closely at where figures come from. Governments are not required to follow any fixed approach in collecting, analysing and publishing data. Even with the best of intentions, figures from different countries will mean different things. And we all know that at times some governments have published distorted figures in order to make aspects of their countries look better, or more in line with official policy, than they may really be. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To "look closely" in the the context of Wikipedia means to find reliable sources that raise the questions you cite. Until we have concrete, sourceable information that supports changing the wording as you suggest, such changes would amount to original research and can't really be made. /ninly_(talk) 14:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That misses my point entirely. A frequent topic of discussion here is whether a particular source is reliable. Some want to accept "official" figures without question. I say we must always question the source. Adding the word "official" is not a magic way of removing the need to question a source. I'm surprised that some here trust all national governments that much. HiLo48 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't miss the point. I don't know where this "official" designation came from in the first place, so let's drop it; our current figures come from the CIA, Foreign Policy magazine, www.adherents.com, and The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. Only one of these comes from a national government, and it's not in the CIA's interest to hold a grossly inaccurate understanding of the world's population. Still, the point I'm really making is that if you want to challenge the reliability of any of these pretty well established sources, you need to cite specific, reliable references that demonstrate the fallibility of our current figures. It's not that we necessarily disagree with you, but "we can't trust these numbers" is not enough on its own. /ninly_(talk) 19:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the CIA does its best, and its a source I often use. But let's look more closely. I've already mentioned Australia. The five yearly census says that 67% declare themselves and those they are filling in the form for (maybe 25% of the population) to be Christian. But less than 25% attend church for events other than weddings and funerals. I've actually seen a figure of 7%! How many are really Christians? (Trying to define a Christian is notoriously difficult.) Do similar problems exist with other countries' figures? HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Any form of census or counting is notoriously difficult and full of complaints. Anytime any church states their membership you will find a cadre of individuals who disagree with their number: how is a member? do they attend? beliefs the same? just a baptism in their youth? etc. etc. etc. I suspect that the CIA reference identifies a Christian as one who follow Jesus Christ. I strongly doubt they are concerned with specific dogmas, etc. It does not matter if you are a Trinitarian or not. If you profess to teach Jesus then you are in the group. It gives fits to those who seek to stamp out heresy within the body of Christ, but life goes on. --^StormRider 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be based on the fact that many people who claim to be Christian don't actually go to church, right? Then let me ask you this - since when did church attendance define someone's faith? Pardon me, but that standard just seems a bit silly.Farsight001 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

People who actually attend church is one possibility. There are several others. My position is not one of support for any one approach. It's one of doubt that any count is quantitatively meaningful. Good sources are what we need, but we must always be on the alert for exactly what data is being collected, how, and how well. And of course the CIA doesn't collect its own data in most countries. It depends on data collected and reported by others. The questions asked and methods used by those "others" will vary a lot. And it's not just Christianity that I'm concerned about. In an officially Muslim country, the Muslim government may be tempted to put a more positive slant on the number of Muslims than you or I might. You will have seen above that, because of my doubts, I am a supporter of the less absolute claim that Christianity is "one of the largest..." HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We should only be following sources here. If sources X, Y, and Z say Christianity is the largest religion, we need to present it as such, unless there are competing sources A, B, and C stating Islam is the largest religion. Do our sources have unanimity or near consensus? Or do we need to consider other views (and I mean other views of reliable sources, not other views of random anonymous wikipedians who think they know more than published sources ;) This shouldn't be hard. What do the sources say? We don't discount sources which meet verifiability and reliability standards based on personal opinions regarding census statistics (though, if we have sources making those claims, that's another matter).-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, I endorse User:HiLo48's points of view. Having statistics with an advocate source is definitely acceptable with Wikipedia's Terms and Conditions, but generalizing Christians to be fully-certified believers in the Christian God AS a statistic poses a few problems. For one, how can one person/organization (namely CIA?) ascertain valued information like that without it being flawed? The main requirement for a Christian is to go to Church for religious sentiments, but if they don't does that make them Agnostic or Christian or both? 2.2 Billion Christians simply seems like a rough sketch, an estimate, and not one to be thrown around with encyclopedic values. Factually, it is impossible to determinate the world's largest religion and thus a more loosely stated 'one of the world's largest religions' is more appropriate under these circumstances.Asmodieus (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian world map

What is up with the "Christian world map" image. The source is listed as "Own work", thereby it should be removed? Is this an admittance to violating original research policy--because it doesn't otherwise list a reference for the figures? Are we to assume it's based on those listed in the adjoining paragraphs? Am I being picky? The Islam demographic map does the same but at least it notes what the reference of the map is based on. And note, I'm not trying to reiterate the discussion below, I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't cite whether it uses the official figures, so there is question as to whether it actually reflects them. Ignotum per Ignotius (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be removed outright, only because I doubt it's really OR. But I agree that "own work" is not a complete source – the image caption (or something) should also list where the data came from. I understand the confusion, though – nominally the "Source" field is for the source of the image (consider a photograph of a location or monument, for example), and "own work" is fine in most cases – original research constraints don't apply. Note that we'll still need the "own work" here to show that the image wasn't lifted wholesale from a copyrighted source. /ninly_(talk) 14:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Can we get a different picture please? of a cross preferably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs) 18:40, April 12, 2010

Why? A stained-glass image of Christ seems perfectly appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolver-Aphelion (talk • contribs) 13:24, April 16, 2010

Why not both? -Cynthia (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You can totally tell from reading this article

That it was written by christians

ohwow what a surprise

~~---Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.33.52 (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it be any better written by someone else? This just outlines the general history and beliefs. Not to assume bad faith, but if you have a problem with Christians writing articles, you likely have a negative opinion of them. Don't. Don't look down on anyone. We are all people, regardless of our beliefs. We should unite, not split into groups. It's how we grow to understand. I know this is likely fruitless, responding to an obvious troll who will not likely return for rebuttal, but I hope you can learn from this. We all can learn to love. 174.1.136.145 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think he was recommending that having the article written on neutral ground would be more accurate rather than having someone write down their own belief. Even if the person whom wrote this has much more experience and detail on the subject, it doesn't put away the fact that the person may be writing on behalf of his/her own opinion. On a forum, yes that would be acceptable writing in an opinionated manner but on a encyclopedic website it is not.

I, myself, see no big deal forthcoming from this approach and it's probably just somewhat a mountain out of a mole hill.Asmodieus (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether the article complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I suspect the OP feels it doesn't. I don't think it does either, as it persistently misuses the term "Catholic" when only "Roman Catholic" is meant, which blatant Roman Catholic POV-pushing. Pais (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem prety biased, and no alternative standpoints are given on any of th subjects put forth, nor is much effort made to mark out any of the failing of Cristianity, or those who interpret it, to any real degree-unlike say the Islam article which makes numerous references to Terrorists that commit their actions in Islam's name. This article just seems to pro Christian to me.=/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.210.73 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be written by christians? We know our faith better than any other religion does. -Cynthia (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this also may cause you to be biased. If this was written by someone indifferent to the relegion they may be able give a more balanced view and thus create a better article-the present one seems to just state that Christianity is great and makes no mention of any of its flaws, ie where other articles concering relegions have timelines which note particular periods of relegious extremism etc, this article does not. Its like asking a person's beloved spouse if the person is guilty of a crime, guilty or not, that they've been married for some time would cloud their judgement and thus give a biased answer. If however you were to ask another person who may have observed the crime or the like if the person was guilty their answer could be more accurate as they do not know the person. Not the best example I know, but I'm just trying to get the point across that this article needs to be edited to present a more even handed view instead of being solely from the standpoint of one of those of the relegion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.198.156 (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you say that someone who is "Indifferent" to the religion will be unbiased? Everyone is Biased, and its impossible to be anything else. I agree that its a good idea a "christian" should write this article , because as a previous post mentioned:"We know our faith better than any other religion does", though the article in itself isn't promotional. I'd say that it is better to have a "biased" accurate article, than an "unbiased" inaccurate one. after all this is Wikipedia. Esaysimyan (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to read the lead without concluding nevertheless that it is written by believers, in their fashion, and is that the ideal? Also where has St.Paul gone?. surely 'based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the N.T.' should at least read 'based on the life and teachings of Jesus and paul' - all that about adam bringing sin and Jesus as the new Adam, etc..a lot of Xty is teaching about what Jesus's life and death 'mean' isn't it, not Jesus teaching itself - which has been pretty well ignored by Xtians. A small thing in the lead too, why 'Xtians believe Jesus is the Son of God , THEREFORE refer to Jesus as Messiah'. But as stated in first sentence Messiah just meant Anointed One in hebrew, like Xristos in greek, - didn't mean son of God. Sayerslle (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

History of Christian Spirituality

I notice that "Christian spirituality" redirects here, and I'm wondering if there's any interest in making that a separate article. I'd like to see more discussion of the key figures of Christian spirituality, and I think it might make this article too long to do so, and History of Christianity doesn't seem like a good fit, and I'd like to see the topic discussed in one place, as opposed to scattering it across all the "Christianity in the Xth Century". Thoughts? Should we reclaim "Christian spirituality" or create a "History of Christian spirituality"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, it makes more sense to create the base article, in this case Christian spirituality first, and then create a "history of" subarticle. And, the exact definition of "Christian spirituality" might be a bit of a problem, which would probably influence the content of a "history of" article. I'd go with the initial creation of the article in userspace though, ask for some input regarding whether there are any problems with it, and then maybe later move it into article space. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marxism, socialism and liberalism

In the History and Origins, In the Modern Era subsection we have "Christianity has been confronted with various forms of skepticism and with certain modern political ideologies such as versions of socialism and liberalism." Just had a little edit skirmish over an unexplained change from "Marxism" to "socialism and liberalism". Not at worried about the skirmish, but I am confused about what any of this is about. What point are we making here? There is no source. I am aware that to many Americans the words socialism and liberalism can be read as having the same meaning as evil and satanic, but this is a global article and we mus avoid local meanings. Is there a valid point being made here, and why the change of wording? HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the old mention of Marxism, both because it really did signify an anti-Christian ideology and because it fit better with the examples that follow, which start as far back as the French Revolution. The comment about liberalism and socialism strikes me as far too recent a development for what the paragraph is trying to say. If we want to discuss more recent concerns, then we need to add a few more sentences discussing the issue from a contemporary perspective. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Moral/ethics?

Just skimming the article, I did not find any information about the morals or ethics of Christianity. It seems that since a majority of the Gospels are spent discussing how one should live, there should be some mention of it here. Not that these ethics or morals are the more definitive aspects of Christianity (like the Beliefs and the Worship), but more in general ought to be said about morals, e.g. how a Christian is made into the image of Christ through living as He did; the virtues of faith, hope, charity, etc.

Nighm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

Circular reasoning and other stuff

"(...) based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.(...)" I have a problem with this line... there is no proof that any one with that name has ever existed^{(see foot note)}... and by having the "as presented in the New Testament" we have Circular reasoning.

any one get my drift?

• http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html --> Et tu Jesus? <-- and real onwards.

81.225.102.211 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you should be part of the Christ myth theory discussion.... Meanwhile, I think that the reference to the NT actively acknowledges that we're working with a textual creation more than with a real person. The sentence is in fact saying "based on the presentation of Jesus found in the NT." That sentence in no way requires anyone to accept the existence of a historical Jesus. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ah, I see... Ok then, well it made me go "what the hell am i reading?" anyway, thanks for clarification.

81.225.102.211 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this page listed under "pending changes"?

There's been a lot of IP vandalism lately, and I can't tell if this page is already under any kind of protection. If not, do we want to request protection? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Its under pending I think as I have picked up some vandalism there --Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I wondered, since I was seeing "automatically accepted" next to some edits. But it makes me wonder how the vandalism got through. Or do all the edits get marked in the history page, even if they're not accepted by the pending changes editors? Maybe I'm expecting the rejected changes to just not show up at all in the history page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins and some others are I think automatically accepted. You might want to look at WP:PC, which details the subject a bit better. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No Counter-Argument?

As a Freethinker I fully respect any inidivduals right to belief in whatever they want to believe in, but this article is purely about Christianity and has no counter-argument, which makes for a poorly written article, no offence. Like an essay, everything needs a counter. Where are the explanations for the Pagan symbols in Christianity? Where is the article about the cloth that Jesus's body was wrapped in, and was proven by scientific tests that it was a fake? Et cetera.

I would like to see at least a reference to the counter-points, as I would expect to see Religious Counter-Arguments on an page about Atheism.

Thanks for reading my thoughts and opinions, keep up the good work here at Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.120.80 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First - new sections are supposed to go at the bottom please. I have moved it there for this reason.

Second - there is a Criticism of Christianity article

Third - if you actually check the Atheism article it is about as devoid of criticism as this article (and it, too, has a "criticism of" counterpart.

Fourth - Like an essay, everything needs a counter? No. This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay. Find an encyclopedia and read some of the more controversial articles. They are not surprisingly devoid of counterargument.

Fifth - Symbols are only pagan if the user wants it to be. A symbol is never de facto pagan. So while Christianity may use symbols alike in appearance to ones used by pagans, they are not "pagan symbols". They are Christian symbols with a visual, but ultimately irrelevant, similarity to symbols once used by pagans.

Sixth - the idea that the shroud of Turin, which does actually have it's own article, was proven fake, is a false assumption based on having only half the story. It's a whole lot more complicated than "the shroud was carbon dated to the middle ages".Farsight001 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian_world_map.png

I am curious why there is a different kind of map used to show the demografics then in other religions articles.

Current Map in Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_world_map.png

Map used in Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Muslim_Population_Pew_Forum.png

.. and Atheism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg

There is an old map that uses the same style for Christianity, which is still used on Christianity_by_country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_distribution.png

As you can see, the old map is way more detailed than the new one from last May. I see no reason why a new map, that is much less detailed and does not use the style that is used elsewhere replaces the old one which is still used in the main article of the topic. I searched in the archives for discussions about the map but didn't find a discussion about it, except one guy pointing out that there is no source to where the data came from (he talks about the Source:Own work which is ok for the file it self, but there is still no source of the actual data used).

Given all these issues (and... pointlessnes...), I would just go ahead and change it. But I thought I bring up the issue here first scince this isnt exactly just any article. 188.61.15.152 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the statistics used in the former map are not reliable at all, and there are a lot of sources claiming different percentages. For example, Ukraine is no longer 90-100% Christian as the former map shows: official statistics put the number of Christians at slightly more of 40%. The same is valid for the UK, where latest surveys put the number of Christians at less than 50%. --79.45.83.135 (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is no longer NPOV

I ask the community to have a look at these additions by Oro2. I think Wikipedia should avoid the use of sensationalistic Evangelical press articles since they're severely non-neutral and they're not reliable. As for the paragraph added by Oro2, it is written in a "holy war" style against non-Christian religions and Nations. --79.45.83.135 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, too much barracking. (That's the same as rooting, for the Americans.) That adherents of religions try to prove their correctness by counting heads is one reason I find them somewhat sad. HiLo48 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that some of the information is fluff. Al-Jazeera can be used but seems unecessary and the info cited to Christianaction.org is nothing but puffery. Soxwon (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoteric Christianity and reincarnation

It is possible that some esoteric Christian denominations accept reincarnation, and the claim is in the Esoteric Christianity article, but it isn't properly referenced either there or here. The reincarnation article is aware (with references) that many Christians embrace a popular belief in reincarnation, but this has nothing to do with esoteric Christianity, it is just a lack of education on one's own religion: these people are for the most part not even aware that their religion officially rejects the doctrine of reincarnation. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Problematic definition

The very first sentence of the article states (per 31.10.2010 C.E.) that Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. This definition marks a boundary of Christianity that, strictly read, excludes forms of christianity that existed prior to the present canonized texts of the New Testament. In addition are movements, or sects, that may otherwise could be regarded as Christian also excluded, which either do not share the traditional faith in the canonized texts; has (alternatively have had) different canonized texts, or as is examplified by the cathars who (allegedly) merely held the Gospel of John, or a version of it, as sanctified text. It might be felt necessary for the majority of contributors to keep a definition of Christianity fit with the understanding that it is a religion of the book. This should be reflected, but even according the Catholic encyclopedia, the idea that there has been a complete canon since apostolic times is not founded in history, as stated in the wikipedia article Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon. As an alternative opening sentence I will suggest: Christianity is a monotheistic religion founded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, reflected in the New Testament, and expressed by various traditions throughout the Common Era that believe Jesus is Messiah, or Christ.--Xact (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Christianity and violence

An RFC has been issued for Christianity and violence here. Please provide you input. Thanks.--Richard S (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor Change

Hey, I wasn't sure on your protocol for this, but I notice a </ref> tag out of place after the first sentence. As it's restricted, I can't edit that.

Fixed. Thanks for picking that up. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.168.188.82, 27 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Sacraments: In Christian belief and practice, a sacrament is a rite, instituted by Christ, that mediates grace, constituting a sacred mystery. The term is derived from the Latin word sacramentum, which was used to translate the Greek word for mystery. Views concerning both what rites are sacramental, and what it means for an act to be a sacrament vary among Christian denominations and traditions.(actual text)

-The above text is incorrect. In Christian belief, a Sacrament is an act that shows the invisible presence of God. All Sacraments are not instituted by Christ. Two Sacraments: Holy Baptism, and Holy Eucharist are actually instituted by Jesus Christ because he has actually taken part in these two sacraments and actually established the Holy Eucharist. But, other sacraments are not instituted by Christ. The two sacraments established by Christ (Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist) are known as Dominical Sacraments. Other sacraments are considered as the Visible presence of the invisible grace of God.

122.168.188.82 (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Change not made for a few reasons. First, while it may be true of your denomination that there are only two sacraments, the majority of Christians number the sacraments at seven. Second, what the world is literally translated from does not necessarily represent its definition. "Bible" simply means "book", yet you would never say that the bible is just a book. Third, I'm a little fuzzy on verse locations, but I'm betting a large amount of people would disagree that those are the only two instituted by Christ. (which, why does that matter in the first place?)Farsight001 (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that was the point being made by the IP user. The article as written suggests that all sacraments are instituted by Christ, while the user is saying that some denominations believe that some sacraments were not instituted by Jesus. LewisWasGenius (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that the IP user did not actually make an Edit request, but simply complained about the existing article. Edit requests need to contain suggested new wording so that we can be sure what the proposer is actually requesting. And I have trouble with sentences like "All Sacraments are not instituted by Christ." It's almost certain that our IP editor meant to say "Not all sacraments are instituted by Christ." the two sentences say very different things. Since our requester has not made it clear what he or she actually wants, it's clear that no change can be made in response to this request. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and violence

The Christianity and violence article has been almost totally rewritten undergone substantial expansion and rewriting in the last few weeks. Any suggestions for further improvement would be much appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Jesus offensive to Iconoclasts, others

I suggest that the Jesus image in the Christianity infobox should be removed in favor of an image that is not so controversial, such as a plain wooden cross, for two reasons. -One: a significant stream in Christian tradition from the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire to the altar-stripping enthusiasts of the Protestant Reformation to modern-day Peace Churches is iconoclasm, or the rejection of images, particularly images of the divine (including, from their perspective, Jesus). Today, millions of Christians are members of iconoclastic groups, and find pictures of Jesus highly offensive. -Two: many Christian scholars find an image of a Jesus with a light skin tone both historically dubious and racially, ethnically and culturally pejorative - not least of which is black theologian James Cone, who states that a white Jesus is the image of the oppressor. Other proponents of Black, Asian, African and Liberation Theologies likewise are offended by such an image. -In conclusion, while I am neither an iconoclast nor a liberation theologian, I believe these significant views should be respected in the image box representing all Christianity for all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibojopayne (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

An interesting observation, particularly the concept that we shouldn't have images of Jesus because they will offend some people. Wikipedia contains a lot of pictures which will offend some people. Those of naked bodies, sex organs and sex positions spring to mind. I accept that religious belief is different, but Wikipedia just cannot try to please everybody. As for the particular picture, I do see it as a problem. It looks like a western European idealised view of what some people from that area would have liked him to look like, and almost certainly didn't. I think it's another case of having something in the infobox because we can, not because it actually helps in understanding the topic. To me it's a nice picture, but it would fit better in a collection of images representing what it is, a popular form of Christian church art from a particular area at a particular time. There are no "real" images of Jesus in existence (ignoring shrouds maybe), so to be realistic, we probably shouldn't have one either. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether that particular picture should be in the lead of the article or not doesn't matter a lot to me (within reason) but the reasoning that no pictures belong because there are no true images of Jesus does not really hold up. This battle has been done many times on the Islam pages over the pictures of Mohammad. The consensus there is always that the image should be used even though it isn't an actual representation and it offends people. Same thing should apply here. As for what picture belongs in the lead, that battle has been going on for awhile. People constantly change the picture, either on this page or the Jesus page to be their own particular view of what is appropriate. There will never be a picture that pleases everyone. Some denominations view a bare cross as unacceptable because they say it shows the method of Jesus' death and shouldn't be used. I guess the least offensive may be the Christian fish sign, but even that will cause problems.Marauder40 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So what is the argument for having a picture at all? As I suggested above, my impression is that it's there because it can be, not because it serves any real purpose. Whoever created the infobox allowed one to be included. Doesn't mean we must have one. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

First, which denominations view the cross as unacceptable? I've never heard that before. Second, nixing the picture of Jesus' face is not about pleasing everyone, it's about respecting significant historic and current strands of the faith in question. Third, good golly, the Islam article does NOT have a picture of Muhammad (it's represented by Arabic calligraphy, which is consistent with all significant strands of Islam), so the Islam comparison only serves to strengthen the point that a picture of a major religion's founder need not be part of the religion's prime wikipedia picture. Fourth, the fish with the Greek "ikthus" is a revered ancient Christian symbol and non-controversial as far as I know; how would the fish sign "cause problems" in any significant way? Some might dislike fish bumper stickers, but I'm talking about internal consistency in the representation of a religion, and that's what counts here. Plus, the "ikthus" is informative to some who don't know the connection between the fish, the "ikthus" and the faith. Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. End of story. In addition, while the Islam article may not have a depiction of Muhammad, the Muhammad article typically does. There is no way to be "consistent with all significant strands of Islam" because there are two significant strands of Islam - the ones who don't want the images, and the ones who created them in the first place. (Sunni and Shia)Farsight001 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, typically an article has a picture towards the beginning of the article. This discussion would take place no matter what the first picture in the article is, whether it be in the lead or not. Wikibojopayne I said the Islam articles, I didn't give you a specific link because I didn't look to see which ones have it in it currently. I have been in the articles in the past and have witnessed the numerous discussion about the picture. In the end, the exact answer is WP is not censored, pure and simple. Consensus desides what belongs where. As to which exact denominations don't like the cross or the "iktus". The LDS church immediately comes to mind as a Christian church (depending on your POV) that doesn't like the cross. There are lots of denominations out there and many have problems with almost any aspect of Christianity. Some have problems with this, some have problems with that. In an article like this you will never make everyone happy. Like I said the "iktus" would probably be the least offensive, but I am sure someone will complain. In the end the discussion is whether the picture is the best picture to represent the topic, not whether it offends anyone. BTW, the picture isn't really part of this page it is part of the template. This discussion should really be taking place on the template page. Marauder40 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true to say that "typically an article has a picture towards the beginning of the article. ", But most articles about people are about people for whom real likenesses exist. The picture in question is nothing of the kind. No such picture exists. Including any particular picture says more about the artist and the biases of those wanting it included than it does about Jesus. It cannot be claimed to be an accurate representation in any way. It would fit, along with many others, in an article about how different people throughout history and around the world have visualised Jesus, but as a single image at the head of this article it is far too narrow a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but, as already stated, the picture actually isn't in the article per se. It is in the Template:Christianity, which is transcluded into this and several other articles. I agree that it would probably be better to discuss this matter either at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page or maybe the talk page of the template, but honestly I do not think that this page is the place to be discussing changes to a template that is transcluded into several other articles as well. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right, and that is a real pain. From my perspective, far too many entrenched problems with Wikipedia are caused by templates. Visually they cause the inclusion/creation of content that dominates articles. Their results are the first thing a reader notices in most articles, and they are far too often a mess. But unfortunately, that too is an argument for another place. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is a wide-spread virtual consensus that such "side" templates are becoming passe, and that collapsible templates at the bottom of article pages are often a better idea. If you want, you could certainly suggest that this template be changed to that sort of format, but that would probably best be done at the talk page of either the template or the WikiProject Christianity. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a) the image probably looks nothing like Jesus actually looked, and b) some people will disapprove of it. I find such representations slightly distastefully myself. However, it IS the image most commonly associated with Jesus. Therefore, I say keep it. LewisWasGenius (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the insights and comments. I'm going to take this up on the template page because, as noted, this is really about the template pic, not the pics in the article. Marauder40, thanks for pointing out that LDS folks don't like the cross; that said, the iconoclast view is an even more significant segment of historic and present Christianity, so changing the template pic is not about censorship or pleasing people, it's about representing the faith fairly. LewisWasGenius, the cross is a whole lot more common than this Jesus pic as representing Christianity, and more Christians are offended (past and present) by this face of Jesus than by the cross; so why keep the face pic, especially since early Christians were so iconoclastic that they were called atheists? Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize that that image was the image for the overall Christianity template. In that case, I agree that the cross is a much more iconic Christian image. Of course, we now have the problem of what cross to use... LewisWasGenius (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There's always the possibility of using File:Ichthus.svg or something similar. And if you do discuss it at the template's talk page, I don't know how much people have the template watchlisted, so you might want to consider adding messages at the most relevant project or other talk pages to that discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Presenting images that were and are most widely used best represents what happened historically and is currently happening. I agree that a white picture of a Hebrew makes no sense, but the article is about educating it's readers, so educate them with history! It might be appropriate to point out that views have shifted over time and remind readers that Jesus wasn't white, but if the picture best represents the past then keep it. It is easier to look around in the present then it is the past; do what is necessary, not what is convenient. Inept Input (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the request to remove the image, for the simple reason that it is not actually a picture of Jesus. No pictures of Jesus exist. It is not possible to provide any evidence or citation to support the implication that this is a picture of Jesus, and therefore (in the spirit of Wikipedia) it should be removed. Poglad (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

East/ Liberal Christianity

• In Eastern Category: I request for you to please include Liberal Catholic Church, Eastern Christianity, Behmenism, Emerging Church and Christian Mysticism.

Although there are mysticism within Christianity, the mysticism as focussed on in the Christian Mysticism article is the type of mysticism that enables an individual to obtain direct union with God, without need for Jesus Christ as mediator to God, an expression of Esoteric Christianity.

• please change the category eastern to eastern/ liberal Christianity.

• when it comes to Scripture interpretation, the view from a liberal stream could also be mentioned. (See Great Gospel of John for such an example.

I ask for help with this please, because I don't have editing rights to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Therefore?

I had a quick question... I'm not a religious scholar, but something caught my eye... in the intro to this article it talks about God's embodiment in Jesus, and says "Christians, therefore, commonly refer to Jesus as Christ or Messiah." I was always under the impression that he's called "Christ" because that was his name "Jesus Christ." Is that not correct? I know he's sometimes called "Jesus of Nazareth." Was Jesus of Nazareth his official name? Did we kind of appoint Christ as his last name? If I'm wrong, that's cool, but it'd still be nice to know the truth :P HillChris1234 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Christ is a sort of honorific or title, meaning anointed - sometimes used of a priest or king. ^rossnixon 02:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Christ is a Greek translation of Hebrew messiah. Originally a title (as rossnixon said), it has adopted a more surname-like usage in modern English. See Christ. /ninly_(talk) 17:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You can call Jesus Messiah, Emmanuel, Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, King, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, and anything like that. Jesus has many names including Teacher. It doesn't matter what you call Him as long as you love and adore Him. Twinsisterslove 21:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinsisterslove (talk • contribs)

Last names often originated from one's profession or place of origin. He was born in Nazareth, thus the title, Jesus of Nazareth. Christ is more of an honorific, because he is also Jesus, Christ/Savior/Lord/Messiah. Inept Input (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Actually I partially agree with the original poster - the fact Jesus is known as the Christ does not necessarily logically follow from the fact most Christians consider Jesus to be the son of God. Jews, for example, do not expect the Messiah/Christ to be literally the son of God, just one anointed/chosen by him for a special kingly role. Orlando098 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To the original poster, to be completely accurate (or as accurate as possible when writing in a different alphabet), his name was Yeshu'a ben Yosef or Yehoshu'a ben Yosef (Yeshu'a is a nickname of sorts for Yehoshu'a), which directly translated from Arabic/Hebrew to English is "Joshua son of Joseph". Jesus is the English translation of the Greek version of Yeshu'a "Iesous". Christ, as stated above, is an honorific meaning "anointed one" from the name the early Greek-speaking Christians called him (khristos), which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "mashiyach", which is "messiah" in English. People didn't have surnames back then. Most people were known either as the son of their father (Andy son of Al) or daughter of their mother (Amy daughter of Ann), by their occupation (Bob the lawyer), or by the village they were from (Pierre the Parisian). See http://www.behindthename.com/name/jesus http://www.behindthename.com/name/christ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Christ Hope that clears things up for you! Prtwhitley (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and its Polytheistic Attributes

Here are some credible, scholarly sources, as requested, for the statement about Christianity and how it is believed to be polytheistic. I request that editors maintain an impartial approach when dealing with Christianity-related articles and other religious articles. I further request that editors acknowledge the polytheistic elements of the Christian faith, the controversy around the issue, and that Christianity believed to be polytheistic by some.

It says in the American Encyclopedia (an academic accredited work):

"The belief in the Oneness of God – as a theological movement – began at a very early stage in history, and in fact it preceded the belief in trinity by many decades. Christianity developed from Judaism, and Judaism firmly believes that there is one God.

The path that led from Jerusalem (the home of the first disciples of Christ) to Nicea (where it was decided in 325 CE that Christ was equal to God in essence and eternal nature) can hardly be described as a straight path.

The doctrine of trinity which was affirmed in the fourth century CE bears no resemblance to the original teachings of Christ concerning the nature of God. Au contraire, it is the opposite, a deviation from that teaching. Hence it developed in opposition to the belief in One God… (27/294)"

Will Durant, in his The Story of Civilization says:

"When Christianity conquered Rome, the new religion (i.e., Christianity) was infused with the blood of the old idolatrous religion: the title of archbishop, worship for the great mother, and an innumerable number of lords who gave peace of mind and were like who exist in all places and cannot be detected with the senses. All of this came into Christianity as the blood of the mother comes into her child.

The civilized empire handed over power and administration to the papacy and the impact of the word replaced the impact of the sword. The preachers of the church started to assume positions of power.

Christianity did not put an end to idolatry, rather it reinforced it. The Greek mind came back to life in a new form, in the doctrines and rituals of the church. The Greek rituals appeared in the rituals of the monastic saints. From Egypt came the idea of the holy trinity, the day of reckoning, eternal reward and punishment, and man’s eternal life in one of the other. From Egypt also came the worship of the mother and child, the mystical union with God, the union which led to Platonism and agnosticism, and the erasing of Christian doctrine. And from Persia came the belief in the return of the Messiah and his ruling the earth for 1000 years.

Despite the element of atheism in the words of Durant, which is something that he is known for, and which is apparent in his claim that the idea of eternal reward or punishment came from the Egyptians, tracing the origins of deviant idolatry in Christianity is no longer a secret, and he is not the only one who has researched them. In his book Christianity and Idolatry, Robertson states that Mithraism, which is a religion of Persian origin, flourished in Persia approximately six centuries before the birth of Christ, and it reached Rome around the year 70 CE, where it spread throughout the Roman lands. Then it reached Britain and spread to a number of British cities. What concerns us here about this religion is that it says:

- That Mithras, after whom it is named, was an intermediary between God and man (for a similar doctrine in Christianity, see Acts 4:12).

- He was born in a cave or in a corner of the earth (cf. Luke 2:8)

- His birthday was December 25 (which is the day celebrated by the Christians as the day when Jesus was born)

- He had twelve disciples (cf. Matthew 10:1)

- He died to save the world (cf. I Corinthians 15:3)

- He was buried but he came back to life (cf. I Corinthians 15:4)

- He ascended to heaven in front of his disciples (cf. Acts 1:9)

- He was called “Saviour” (cf. Titus 2:13)

- Among his attributes is that he is like a peaceful lamb (cf. John 1:29)

- The “Divine supper” was held in his memory every year (cf. I Corinthians 11:23-25)

- One of his symbols was baptism

- Sunday was sacred to them "

The French Orientalist Leon Joteh, is of the view that:

"The origin of the Christian trinity is to be found in Greek philosophy, specifically in the ideas of modern Platonism, which took the basis of the idea of trinity as a view of the Creator of the universe from Plato, then developed it to a great extent, so that the resemblance between this idea and Christianity became greater. So (in their view) the Creator, the One Who is absolutely perfect, appointed two intermediaries between him and mankind, who emanated from Him, and were also part of Him at the same time, meaning that they are contained in His essence. These two entities are reasoning and divine spirit. Then he said:

The marriage of Jewish belief and Greek philosophy did not only produce philosophy, rather it produced a religion too, namely Christianity which imbibed many ideas from the Greeks. The Christian concept of divinity is taken from the same source as modern Platonism. Hence you see many similarities between the two, although they may vary in some details. They are both based on a belief in trinity, in which the three “persons” are one.

Idolatry and polytheism entered Christianity through the influence of the hypocrites who occupied positions of influence and high positions in the Roman state by pretending to be Christians, but they never cared about religion and were not sincere at all. Similarly Constantine had spent his life in darkness and evil, and he did not follow the commands of the church except for a short while at the end of his life.

Although the followers of Christianity gained some power, to the extent that they managed to have Constantine appointed as ruler, they failed to eradicate idolatry completely. As a result of their struggle, their principles became fused with idolatry, from which point there developed a new religion in which Christianity and idolatry were manifested equally."

Lynda Buztilloz, a academic writer for Skeptic Tank says:

" The Christian religion and all its theology did NOT spring out of the mind or lips of Jesus, known as the Christ, but developed, over time, as does every other religion that lasts beyond the life of its original guru.

The concept of the Trinity was worked out with MUCH controversy, a couple of hundred years later, once they have finished pushing back their presumed time of Jesus taking on the mantle of 'divinity' from after the resurrection, to the vision on the Mount (with moses, etc), to his Baptism, to his time in the synagogue at age 12, to his birth.... to John's ethereal "In the beginning, there was the Word.."

Each of those turning points was at some point considered the marker of when Jesus the Man became Jesus the Son of God, and as his worship grew and expanded, it was made earlier and earlier in his life, until finally he was God from the beginning of time.... and then we had a little problem, because of that committment to monotheism, in spite of a practice of polytheism that would eventuaully include Mary and every local deity they could sanctify along the way.

So the Trinity was hashed out... and gee whiz, there was already precedent in the pagan cultures they were assimilating of Triune gods and goddesses, so that was acceptable enough as long as they made sure to loudly yell that it was ONE God in THREE Persons, not THREE Gods.

And the locals mostly scratched their heads over the distinction but as long as they could keep enough elements of what they already knew and the Church was willing to let their goddess Mari or whatever local name they called her have a place as the Holy Mother, what the heck... priests are a funny lot anyway, and who has time to argue with crops to bring in and these nuts likely to start burning you if you point out what it is they are doing.

Polytheism, in denial, all down the line. "

Thank You,

--Don Zaloog (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Don Zaloog

Thanks for providing valuable content to the discussion. On large topics with many contrary opinions such as "Jesus," we need to identify the majority viewpoint, as reflected in commonly accepted reference texts. For determining how much weight to give each opinion, no number of individual scholars is a substitute for a highly-respected, disinterested tertiary source. Your American Encyclopedia quote is solid. Based on that (and other sources) we could probably say that, according to the majority viewpoint, the Trinity doesn't reflect Jesus' actual teaching about God. Will Durant is good and detailed, but he represents scholarship from the middle of the last century, and it's not necessarily current. His view of Mithras, in particular, is no longer in favor. I'm not sure how notable or current the other scholars are, but if they are in line with what we find in the commonly accepted reference texts, then we can probably cite them for specifics. Leadwind (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

when we say "Christianity", we usually mean "post-Nicaean Christianity". Whatever happened before the 4th century is of course of historical interest, but still rather tangential to this article. The topic has its own dedicated articles, at Early Christianity and Origins of Christianity. This is a WP:SS article. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Curious to know who the "some" are that think the Christian concept of the Trinity = polytheism? (Not in ancient sources, mind you, only in modern ones, that is, latter half of the 20th century at earliest). I'm not aware of a current controversy (the ancient controversy belongs to the other pages as identified by dab above). Prtwhitley (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Son of God

If find the passage "Most Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God," highly problematic. The vast majority of Christians in the world would say that people who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God would not be Christians at all... Who is the one to decide who is Christian and not? What is the authority this article is based on? This is especially problematic since the article goes on stating that Christianity is based on the New Testament where the question of being the Son of God is quite clear... --129.242.182.190 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if everyone agrees since none have replied. How do I change this? There is no "edit" tab...

129.242.182.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

"Christian" means Follower of Christ; anyone who follows his teaching, inclusive of him being the Son of God, would be a Christian. Anyone who believes otherwise couldn't possibly call themselves a follower of Christ because that would require following. I support your argument; saying, "Most Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God" is a ridiculous statement. Inept Input (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic isn't christian, neither Mormons are Christians. Christian is not just believing in christ but also following his steps and obeying God's word, that's the true definition of Christianity (a new style of life, not a religion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.119.1 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Catholics and Mormons are both Christian denominations. Your statement is an opiion, not a fact.

As for determing who is a Christian and who is not, the Council of Nicea answered that a very long time ago. I refer you to the Nicean Creed, it very succinctly outlines what Christians believe. Anyone who believes as stated there is a Christian.Prtwhitley (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll note on the article that you linked that the Nicene Creed is only accepted as normative by certain Christian denominations (Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, Orthodox). Many denominations refer to other creeds, or do not use a text of that kind (but are certainly considered Christian). /ninly_(talk) 15:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Apostle's Creed, it essentially states the same things as the Nicene Creed. Additionally, even in denominations that do not recite one of theses creeds as a part of their regular worship services, the things stated in these creeds are the basic tennets of the Christian faith. Please provides citated proofs of Christian denominations that do not hold these basic tennets. Prtwhitley (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman, Bart (2005) [2003]. Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-19-514183-2. Retrieved July 26, 2010. As a result of this ongoing scholarship, it is widely thought today that proto-orthodoxy was simply one of many competing interpretations of Christianity in the early church. It was neither a self-evident interpretation nor an original apostolic view. The apostles, for example, did not teach the Nicene Creed or anything like it. Indeed, as far back as we can trace it, Christianity was remarkably varied in its theological expressions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Christianity isnt growing

how Christianity had 2 billion Followers ? people of EU and America never go to church , few go to church . Secularity had 2 billion Secularity --213.166.157.138 (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this text, previously deleted by Carl.bunderson as a forum post, because, while it has a controversial heading, I believe it raises an important point. The number of people who are "adherents" of a religion is naturally impossible to count accurately. And while most people in the western world may described as cultural Christians, and they may declare one of the Christian denominations on a census form, are they really "adherents"? In my country, Australia, over 60% of people declare a Christian faith at the five yearly census, but only 7% regularly attend church. Which ones are really Christian adherents? Is the article being a little presumptuous with it's figures? HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We've been around this block before. Put these arguments into the mouth (or pen) of a reliable source and we can present them in the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue was highlighted not by the IP editor with his/her sloppy post, but by one of the protectors of the article calling it a forum post and deleting material from the Discussion page, something that should only be done with pretty bad stuff. Not a friendly (or Christian?) response. Anyway, just went checking those sources for the current figure in the article. The first, the CIA WOrld Fact book link takes me to a page with nothing about religion. It must not be left to the reader to go searching a source. The second requires me to log on. Quite inappropriate. The third, an overtly Christianity promoting site, like WIkipedia draws on other sources. two editions of the World Christian Encyclopedia. Now, being the same publication, just for different years, that is really only one source, and, I would humbly submit, not an independent one. So, we're left with a single doubtful source telling us 2.1 million (not 2.2 million as the article says). So, I question the figures in the article. And maybe I wasn't around when you last went around this block. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether the persons reporting as such are nominal or not, census data would be the only reliable, verifiable source, but then that leaves out people in the developing world, which has the fasting growing numbers of religious adherents (whether Christian, Islamic or otherwise). As nice as it would be to have a solid number, it's just not possible to have a world-wide figure. Since this is the English language WP, why not just quote the census data for the countries in which English is the predominate language? Prtwhitley (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The title of this section is inappropriate and offensive. Is there any definition that says a person isn't a Christian if they don't attend church regularly? No. The only true way to record who are Christians or not is by asking them. Just as we can record the amount of gays by asking them. We don't question whether or not someone is gay by seeing if they had been in a same-sex relationship before, we simply believe them. This is not an online forum to debate the standards of what a Christian is. The World Factbook is a more than reliable source and shouldn't be questioned.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Original research and/or speculation should not be included in an article unless supported by a reliable source.

Virus on the mind

Richard Dawkins forwarded a viruses of the mind theory in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind) i feel this should be mentioned somewhere in this article and all other articles describing religion.

Religion is an interesting psychological phenomena, and theories on how religions spread certainly deserves mention, if only as a link under see also heading. I am unsure about other theories of why religions spread, but any serious ones should be included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the right place for a connection to that article is in the Religion article itself. Each article on religion, such as this one, should link to the Religion one as part of their definition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We are having the same discussion in the Islam thread, and it was suggested there to, i suppose it is better than not mention at all =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 10:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You say "psychological phenomena" as if that's all that it is. That is strictly your opinion and not a fact, and based on your opinion you cannot make any credible statements. If you can find a source with a statement that you feel is necessary and informative, feel free to put it in the appropriate place in the article yourself. If you are simply trying to badger people with links to sites that call religion a psychological phenomena and not something real, then you should probably refrain from editing the article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality

I don't see a section discussing sexuality or how sexual intercourse was/is viewed by Christianity. Is this because there is not much to state on the subject, or is it well-blended into some other section? There is the Religion and sexuality article, which discusses a bit of it, but I don't see it included in this article at all (not even as a See also link), and I'm not sure how accurate that article is (because it needs fixing up, and dead links replaced).

Also, we need an expert on Christianity at the Sexual intercourse article to weigh in on this section: Talk:Sexual intercourse#In Christianity. Any help would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. It looks to me like this article focuses mostly on the origins, doctrines, practices and history of the tradition, and not so much on other issues like Christian attitudes towards sexuality, politics, art, science, etc. We could put a link in the "See also" section, but even those links seem to have a different focus than what you're asking for. What do others think? Does the current structure of the article allow room for a topic like this--and if so, what other topics would we also need to add? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that we could define a simple, single Christian attitude to sexuality. It seems to me to be one of those areas where attitudes vary almost as widely as in general society. I wonder if Flyer22 could expand on the kind of things he would expect to see in such a section. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, and to Tgeorgescu for weighing in on the matter at the Sexual intercourse article. HiLo48, it's not about what I expect to be said. It's about anything being said on the matter. Clearly, there is something to say on the issue, even with it varying "almost as widely as in general society." A lot of things vary, but we still address them. We summarize. If it can be mentioned in the Religion and sexuality article, then a bit of it can be touched on here...or at least linked to that article. For the Sexual intercourse article, for example, I need information on the "no sex until marriage" or "only as an act of procreation" stuff which appears to be mostly attributed to an aspect of Christianity -- Catholicism. I just don't know what to think on the matter. Oh, and I am female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I still wonder why we're singling out sexuality from all the other "Christian attitudes toward X" sections we could have. If we add this one, how many more would we then feel we need to include? Maybe we should simply expand the See Also section to include these types of topics. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to single it out as needing to be covered more than other cultural topics. I was just surprised to see no section on it. Maybe it's touched on in one or more of the other sections. I don't know and can't tell from just glancing at them. Looking closer also does not clarify, as I am unfamiliar with most of the text in this article.

Addressing sexuality in this article doesn't mean everything relating to Christianity needs to be addressed. Most topics on Wikipedia do not cover every aspect. The most important aspects, however, are usually covered. Sexuality is an important aspect of religion. If it wasn't, so many people would not live their lives according to it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's important, but as I noted above, so are politics, art, science, etc. It seems to me that these kind of topics are not within the scope of the article as it currently stands and should be given their own articles, especially given how complicated and various the views on any of them would be. And it's odd that there isn't a Christianity and sexuality article yet—just a section in Religion and sexuality. Update: I added two links for you in the See Also section; that solution seems to fit best with the other See Also topics. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We would need to find sources that cover this matter. There certainly have been and still are branches of Christianity that have strictly held that sex should be only for procreation. Possibly more (maybe all?) have, in the past, insisted on no sex outside marriage, but that attitude has certainly softened over time. Some branches of Christianity accept homosexuality. Some don't. It's a big topic. (Sorry about the pronoun error Flyer2.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why such a topic would need its own article. But I was still surprised to see not even a bit of it addressed here and pointing to a larger article. Anyway, thanks for adding those links, Aristophanes68. And, HiLo48, the mistaken pronoun happens often on Wikipedia. I'm used to it, and have been guilty of doing it myself. Again, thank you for your reply. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Creating an article like this would require a lot of pre-conceived information from many, reliable, third party sources. I agree that sexuality is a big enough topic and issue in the Christian community that it may deserve its own section and/or article. I suggest first building this in a sandbox first so as to not have a small, haphazard article about such a sensitive issue. I support this decision and would try to contribute if anyone wanted to begin an article on this. Feel free to comment on my talk page.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency with "Major groupings within Christianity" section

The graphic with the algorithm of the break up of Christian denominations is excellent. However it contains one serious flaw in terminology, it calls the Catholic Church "Roman Catholicism" (where it should state simply "Catholicism"- consistent in the rest of the article) with subsections termed as "Western and Eastern Rites". The problem exist in that Roman connotes west, hence its erroneous to call eastern rites/church as being part of the Western(Roman) Catholic Church. No, it is the Eastern Rite/church of the UNIVERASAL (Catholic) Church. Otherwise this is nothing less than an oxymoron as eastern rites are not Roman and certainly not western !!! #!?#%^! Micael (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Three Denominations

The article says Christianity is divided into Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. It goes on to say that Christianity is based on the books of the New Testament. Because the two Catholic churches are included, this is false, as they do not base their religion on the New Testament (which they wrote). Need to keep generalizations straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi Jung (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Catholics most certainly did not write the New Testament. Most of it was written by disciples who were alive before Catholicism was even started. If you do not know something as basic as that, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. If you can cite a source that says that they don't base their beliefs on the New Testament, feel free to put it in the appropriate section.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Most of it was written by disciples who were alive before Catholicism was even started." Catholicism started when Christ Chose St. Peter as His Rock(St. Matthew chapter 16).--Splashen (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "the Catholics" in the sense meant here refers to the development of the primacy of Rome in the 3rd century. The call of Peter is the start of the catholic church (lower case), but that's clearly not the Catholicism the writer above intended. Still, I'm confused as to who claims that the Catholics and Orthodox (the "two Catholic churches" mentioned in the OP above) do not base their religion on the Christian scriptures--that seems to be an extremely biased reading of church history. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yoshi Jung seems to be referring obliquely to the fact that the Catholic Church disagrees with the Protestant sola scriptura premise: that the Christian faith is founded upon the Bible; that the Bible is the only true source of Christian teaching.

To the Catholic view, the Bible is a divinely inspired element of Sacred Tradition; but it can't be separated and set above the faith and tradition through which it was created. (Or: the Bible was created by God working through the Church; the Church wasn't created by men reading the Bible. The Church came before the Bible, as the Bible hadn't been written yet when Jesus and Peter founded the Church.) For more detail, see particularly Sola scriptura#Scripture and Sacred Tradition and Prima scriptura#Roman Catholicism.

This is one of the foundational differences between Catholic and Protestant Christianity. --FOo (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New form of Baptism

Water baptism is very traditional and is a big part of the Christian faith but Wikipedia has left out being baptised in the Holy Spirit. Many churches now baptise people in the Holy Spirit. In my country, Australia, our biggest church, Hillsong, Baptises people regularly in the Holy Spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.221.160 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He is right it says in the NIV Bible 'I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' - Matthew 3:11

If we include something about this, we must include all the significant Christian viewpoints. (See Wikipedia's own article on the baptism with the Holy Spirit.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you mention it and have a hyperlink to baptism with the holy spirit

CE vs AD

Is there any consensus to which form to use on Wikipedia: Christianity. There seem to be many back and forth changes that are happening across the pages within the Christianity/Bible series with regards to how we date things. While this is minor it would make sense to stop the editing war and use our time to have meaningful discussions on how to make meaningful edits. Policy states "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).", I would recommend we choose one so that it can be done with. Not trying to open a can of worms, just trying to find consensus and create uniformity for the Christianity series.Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is probably important to be clear what you mean. You start off "...on Wikipedia", but then proceed "...within the Christianity/Bible series". Wikipedia covers a wide range of topics and tends towards "CE" in general. But in particular areas with a strongly Christian-related content, it is probably OK to use "AD". Note that a similar distinction is needed when discussing what we Christians loosely call the "Old Testament". It is often worth considering the more neutral term "Hebrew Bible". It is a matter of respecting a wide variety of readers, so particular choices (CE/AD; OT/Hebrew-Bible) may need to be made accordingly. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note; I think the relevant policy here is WP:ERA. NickCT (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am referring here to the Christianity/Bible series. I am honestly just tired of seeing an edit showing up on my watchlist every time someone decides their dating "system" is better. I'm selfish and annoyed with it, that's the real truth.Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree: it can be frustrating. I think that, more or less, we just have to live with it. Slightly more actively, we can encourage people who we see doing it to leave it alone, as per WP:ERA (thanks, NickCT, for digging that out!), unless there is good reason to change. Over time, our encouragement might lead to a heightening of people's awareness of the "leave it alone" element of the policy, and a consequent (but probably small) reduction in frivolous changes. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Using BCE-CE is just people's way of trying to be politically correct. It is a useless, confusing technique for the purpose of removing any reference to God or gods from anything so we don't offend people. Like it or not, whichever "dating system" you use, it is still dividing time at Jesus's birth. It is neither more or less appropriate to use either dating systems in any article. Semi-protecting the article is the only real protection we have from this, if anyone gets passed that barrier and is immature enough to fight about it to basically shove it in the face of the "other side", all we can do is deal with it. Unfortunately, there is no real solution.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Feline Hymnic: using BC/AD makes sense ONLY in articles about Christianity. For instance, I imagine that in articles on Hebrew Bible topics, our Jewish friends would not at all be happy to have their characters dated according to the birth of a lord they don't accept. (Would Christians like it if all the Bible and Early Church articles were edited to use the Islamic calendar?) I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to make this a project-wide standard. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You might be surprised! Even within this talk page subtopic there is some difference of opinion, and the best we can really strive for is an article-wide consensus/consistency. Of course, we will never please all of the people. As NickCT mentions above, WP:ERA is the guideline on this. /ninly_(talk) 04:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a mountain of difference between using a dating system based on historical and even secular tradition, and one used solely in one particular religious dating system. Event the Constitution used the phrase "In the Year of Our Lord" without making a particular reference to belief or religion, but rather a traditional naming convention. CyberKarl (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they actually put a number in front of "in the year of our Lord," then it becomes pretty easy to figure out which Lord they're referring to--it's not like there'd be much confusion over which Lord 1789 might be referencing.... It might have been just a convention by then, but it still would clearly reference one particular religion as being the true one (saying Our Lord is a lot different from just saying Jesus of Nazareth). Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Could We Change The Interface For Christianity?

Islam has one that's all nice and Green and cool and everything, because they have PR people trying to do damage control for them 24/7. We should put a brandnew sidebar and make it look all attractive, with, like, a nice Icon for the picture of Jesus (maybe a Pantokrator or something). Let's liven it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.5 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia an outlet for propaganda (pro Christian)? Why does this page need to be made cool in order to one-up the Muslims? Isn't this supposed to be about facts? Neoform (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East

I would like to add the "Assyrian Church of the East" under the section of denominations in the article "Christianity."

We are the oldest denomination that exists and I would like to be represented. Plus, we are mentioned in the picture posted in that exact section...

I am unable to edit the page, so would anyone who is able to do so, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.0.201 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Each denomination has it's on subsection, and I would feel wierd making a subsection without any information. I would be happy to add your denomination if you could provide a little information so the subsection for the 'Assyrian Church of the East' wouldn't be empty..--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Philippines

Even if the "Philippines" have over 90% of Christians, it is not the only Christian nation in Asia. Georgia and Armenia are also located in Asia and they are predominantly Christian - though not Catholic - the other predominantly Catholic state in Asia is the now "independent" state of Easttimor with over 95% Catholicism, thus Christianity. Hope the concerned user got what I mean. --Bone1234 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My upper post refers to this, in the meantime revised, sentence: "It is still the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, the Philippines, and Southern Africa." That sentence implied, that the Philippines were the only predominantly Christian state in Asia which is quite untrue. --Bone1234 (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Apologies for both my misunderstanding and, incidentally, for the confusing cross-posting; we're obviously both online at the same time.

Whilst I understand your concerns, could we not perhaps add East Timor as well, rather than redacting the Philippines? Yunshui (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Since that sentence mentions regions, I would put Philippines and East Timor in a separate sentence. Otherwise, those two countries look like the odd men out in that particular sentence. Bone1234 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Example: "It is still the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas and Southern Africa. Georgia, Armenia, Philippines and East Timor are the only countries in Asia in which the Christianity makes up the majority." If requested, sources can be added but in Fact by wikilinking those states, that can be easily verified. Bone1234 (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How about: "It is still the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, and Southern Africa, and in Asia is the dominant religion in East Timor and the Phillipines." Bit clunky... Yunshui (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Less clunky, if you put the part "In Asia, it is the dominant religion in East Timor and the Phillipines." as a separate sentence. Bone1234 (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I'll edit it into the text now. Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

First Official Church

Probably we could mention that Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion in 301 AD, in establishing Apostolic church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardantinyan (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

proposed simple definition

"Chris·ti·an·i·ty"

1. The practice of theological and or psychological exercises that pertain to social/societal consciousness regarding humanity/humane aspects of peaceful coexistance based from the teachings of the bible.

--Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That could apply to Jews (which Bible did you mean?) and even to non-Christians who like the gospels. I think the definition needs to have some mention of Jesus in there..... Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And either way, it wouldn't apply to those Christians who don't seem willing to peacefully coexist with gays, or others. HiLo48 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I find that many people that consider themselves part of christianity are cool with people being just the way they are so we can remain unbiased for G's US told me so--Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessarily complicated. Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberKarl (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that. How much of those teachings? It's obvious different denominations have different views. I reckon what most of what are described as his teachings are a pretty good guide to life for everyone, including me, but I'm still not even sure if he existed, let alone rose from the dead. So, am I a Christian? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That definition is clearly a biased definition formulated by an Athiest who came up with his/her own reason for Christianity. I actually laughed at that, as if a Christian's main goal is to "peacefully coexist". Obviously that is one of a Christian's intentions but certainly is not the basis. And here, yet again, is people calling Christianity a "psychological phenomena" which is a nice way of saying not real. I am perfectly content with the current definition.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Psychological/social phenomenon" does not say that it is real or not real, it just says it is experienced and performed by people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition: Christians are those people calling themselves Christian. As simple as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good luck getting a favorable consensus on that. The current definition is concise and accurate,I see no reason why we should change it. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with how Tgeorgescu defines the word "Christians". When we define a word, we should not use the same word to describe the meaning, since those people who do not know the meaning of the word will just be more puzzled as the definition loops back to the same word. I prefer the current definition. PrettyPetite ^Talk 09:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not the definition of Christianity or a Christian. This seems like a pseudo-intellectual definition that attempts to turn a belief system into frippery. I reject it in toto. -^StormRider 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Christians outlined their basic beliefs in the Nicene Creed. This should be the definition perhaps? "

Chris·ti·an·i·ty"

1. The practice of the beliefs outlined in the Nicene Creed.

Creed Text: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance. He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints. We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.232.236 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

72.81.232.236 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A Christian descent entry?

Shouldn't there be a category on Wikipedia to infer those to whom are of such a group, specifically those of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and the sort of Eastern Orthodoxy, as these are ethnic religions of sorts. Not to mention an entry possible for other religious ethnic groups such as Muslims, for example. --Bartallen2 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We do have a lot of articles on Christianity. Have you looked at Christian denomination, which has diagrams of the historical relationships of different churches? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section ?

are we to believe that there is no criticism of the major component of the dark ages ?

(and yeah I know there is a separate criticism of christianity but there should at least be a summary section for those who just want a quick look up of christianity's worst crimes against humanity for example)67.55.6.162 (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That criticism section would belong in a separate article. This topic is about whatChristianity is, not what specific groups of Christians have done in the name of it. If that were the case, every other article documenting a group, ideology or movement would have to include the section, no matter how irrelevant these events are to the group, ideology or movement itself. CyberKarl (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Per wikipedia policy we try to avoid criticism sections, and prefer to incorporate the criticisms into the appropriate sections of the article instead. Soxwon (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel like finding enough information based on reliable sources to merit an entire section about Christianity during the "dark ages" please feel free to do so. If you really feel it is necessary to shine a light on the violent history of a religion, also feel free to create a similar article on Islam, Judaism, Scientology, and many other religions. I feel like this discussion page is riddled with people simply trying to defame Christianity.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your feelings of persecution are irrelevant. Also, your requirement of other religions also having criticisms added their pages is irrelevant and unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoform (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That made no sense, I also advise that you look irrelevant up in a dictionary. Please elaborate. I would like to remind you that this is not a forum for debate.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages absolutely are an appropriate venue for discussion. Your previous comment is clearly biased by your need to 'protect' Christianity from any negative light. This is inappropriate for an article that should be entirely unbiased. Neoform (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As Soxwon said, criticism sections are generally avoided, and would probably end up being a mess of NPOV problems in this article. As it is, the history section is NPOV tagged. If you want stuff relating to the Dark ages, it would probably be best to add a moderate amount in the Middle Ages sections with good, reliable sources. -ProtoFire^→talk 01:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Neoform I am not trying to "protect" Christianity, I am simply commenting that it seems like the only intent of this request was to defame Christianity, as seemed many requests on this page at the time of that post.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that there already is an article on Criticism of Christianity, linked from this article in both the infobox and the See Also section, and that many other religions also have corresponding criticism articles. /ninly_(talk) 02:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The anon IP editor acknowledged the existence of Criticism of Christianity in his initial post. His complaint was that this article did not provide an adequate summary of that article. I tend to agree with him and would take it one step further by saying that all religion articles should have a "Criticism" section (because it would be unwieldy and unreadable to weave criticism into each section). Of course, the "Defenders of the Faith" of each religion tend to resist such efforts, preferring to exile discussion of criticism to "Criticism of X" articles. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The original post by the anon IP has been completely redone by someone, I don't know who. The original post did not acknowledge that and had a lot more in it than there is now. Most articles with Criticism subarticles do not have criticism sections. I think we should follow the precident.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The "General topics" section of the sidebar needs to be moved to the top. It isn't fair that the atheism entry has "criticism of atheism" prominent at the top but its buried way at the bottom with just the word "criticism" hidden at the very bottom. Also Christians need to stop insisting that any attempts at criticism are abotu personal vendettas or persecution and such. This is Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with having criticism in a prominent place on this page, just as there is on pretty much all the other sections of wikipedia that could be argued as opposing Christianity or religion in general. The argument goes both ways. As those who accuse people who are against Christianity are themselves showing a form of mistrust and aggression, It woudl appear that act of making such accusations is pretty much mirrored behavior of what is being accused. Radical Mallard (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, the inequality you are referring to has to do with templates, not the articles themselves. If you want that changed, got to the talk page for Template:Christianity or Template:Atheism. Second, the "criticism of atheism" is not that prominent, and serves to balance the entire section in the template devoted to arguments for atheism. This probably has to do with the high importance placed on arguments for/against atheism by many people. - ProtoFire^→talk 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that in various places in the Wikipedia guidelines it says that, if possible, criticism should be distributed through the article, rather than receiving either a separate "Criticism" section or a separate "Criticism" article. But in the case of Christianity, Islam, Atheism, etc., that would seem to be simply impossible without disrupting the flow.

I came to this talk page precisely because I noticed the absence of a criticism section, did not notice the link to the major criticism article buried in alphabetical order in the see-also section, and (despite looking for it) did not notice the link to the Criticism article buried as the 42nd link in the info box. Not to have that link more accessible would seem to be a violation of neutrality, since Christianity (like Islam, atheism, etc.) is highly controversial although one would never know it from the article. ProtoFire says that the link from Atheism to Criticism of Atheism is displayed at the top probably because of "the high importance placed on arguments for/against atheism by many people". But the same is true of Christianity: two thirds of the world's people are non-Christian and thus many people (including many Christians too) place high importance on the pro and con arguments.

I suggest that there should be a brief section at the end called "Criticism", with a main-article template. The Criticism section would summarize the categories of criticisms without going into detail. And by the way, this cannot be rejected on the grounds that a Criticism section would be a POV magnet -- the article Christianity itself, just like Criticism of Christianity, Islam, Atheism, etc., is inevitably a POV magnet anyway; this would not make it more so. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Like it is stated. Articles with Criticism sub-articles don't have Criticism sections as well. You are right in that we should make the criticism link more prevalent but to put a criticism section would not be NPOV. Atheism, Evolution and the like have Criticism sub-articles but have no section titled criticism. Tldr- More prevalent link yes, criticism section no.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)